< September 19	September 21 >

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 Gerry Callahan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mut & Callahan[edit]

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

Article about a single-market local radio show, not properly sourced as passing WP:BCAST criteria for the notability of radio shows. As always, radio shows are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but existence is the only notability claim on offer here, and the only source is the show's own deadlinked former website about itself on the self-published website of its own host station. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Massachusetts. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in article. Elbatli (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mrege and redirect to Gerry Callahan. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 22:17, 17 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!} 22:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gerry Callahan, one of its hosts. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:34, 24 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 Mochiru Hoshisato. ✗plicit 13:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Living Game[edit]

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

Unreferenced article and no evidence of notability. Xexerss (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mochiru Hoshisato per nom, fails GNG/NBOOK. Link20XX (talk) 13:35, 19 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!} 22:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mochiru Hoshisato per Link20XX and nom. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:37, 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!} 07:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj (1997 film)[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 21:29, 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 21:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. all sources are databases. DareshMohan (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; I searched as best I could but there are two limitations to take into account: the film is from 1997, many reviews or reliable sources about the film may have since gone dark in the subsequent 24 years since the film's release. Secondly, this is a Hindi language film. I do not speak Hindi, and it's reasonable to assume that if reviews existed, that they would be in Hindi is probable. However, nothing has been presented or uncovered to suggest that such coverage exists, and absent that coverage the article's subject fails the notability guidelines. If sources can be found and brought up here please ping me as I would be more than happy to reassess my comment based on new information. (Note that I copied my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhairav (film) and modified it slightly before posting it here, as the points I made there equally apply here. I did search independently for each film and I'm not just copy-pasting comments without doing the research into each article) - Aoidh (talk) 22:48, 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!} 07:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhairav (film)[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 "Take it to AfD" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:31, 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 21:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDATABASE. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; I searched as best I could but there are two limitations to take into account: the film is from 2001, many reviews or reliable sources about the film may have since gone dark in the subsequent 21 years since the film's release. Secondly, this is a Hindi language film. I do not speak Hindi, and it's reasonable to assume that if reviews existed, that they would be in Hindi is probable. However, nothing has been presented or uncovered to suggest that such coverage exists, and absent that coverage the article's subject fails the notability guidelines. If sources can be found and brought up here please ping me as I would be more than happy to reassess my comment based on new information. - Aoidh (talk) 22:35, 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 21:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Lobanov (born 1992)[edit]

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

Meets neither NFOOTY or GNG, and even if NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, they would not meet it. Was sent to Draft in the hopes of improvement, but was immediately moved back without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:38, 26 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 21:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Kirov[edit]

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

Meets neither NFOOTY or GNG, and even if NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, they would not meet it. Was sent to Draft in the hopes of improvement, but was immediately moved back without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:59, 26 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Meshalkin[edit]

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

Meets neither NFOOTY or GNG, and even if NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, they would not meet it. Was sent to Draft in the hopes of improvement, but was immediately moved back without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is mentioned in the title of an article in Vologda News but, upon further inspection, the coverage is nothing more than the journalist commenting that he played 720 mins and scored in 7 consecutive games. I searched in a few more places and couldn't find anything more than brief transfer coverage or his name appearing in a squad list. As per nom, this would have failed on the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline so my view on this article would have been the same even prior to the NSPORTS RfC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 25 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 21:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Rapakov[edit]

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

Meets neither NFOOTY or GNG, and even if NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, they would not meet it. Was sent to Draft in the hopes of improvement, but was immediately moved back without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found Rambler, which is more than a passing mention but nothing else really. Not enough to pass GNG on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 24 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 21:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Tsulukidze[edit]

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

Meets neither NFOOTY or GNG, and even if NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, they would not meet it. Was sent to Draft in the hopes of improvement, but was immediately moved back without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:55, 25 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 21:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Malygin[edit]

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

Was deleted through prod back in 2019 since it met neither NFOOTY or GNG, and nothing has changed since then, other than NFOOTY being deprecated, but even if it was still in existence, they would not meet it. Was sent to Draft in the hopes of improvement, but was immediately moved back without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 20 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)} 06:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:SPORTBASIC as there is no online SIGCOV in English or Russian-language sources. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - news coverage seems to amount to little more than passing mentions like 35 Media Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 27 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!} 22:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benedic Books[edit]

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

Made a research on Google and theirs no reference to proof the publishing company is notable and it seems not to meet WP:GNG. Article looks promotional as well. Gabriel^t@lk 20:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Gabriel^t@lk 20:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Although they have lot of books published under their brand but I don’t think that still meet the fact their suitable to be on Wikipedia for now as per my reason above.--Gabriel^t@lk 21:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My research indicates that this company no longer exists. I do not find it in various lists of SA publishers nor in the list of members of the SA publishing association. I admit that I do not have good access to SA sources, so I will swing back here in case someone has found some (unexpected) strong sources. Lamona (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning Delete) - Passing mention here: "Producers of mainly popular fiction (specifically romance novels that were exclusively sold to public libraries) such as Benedic/Makro Boeke and Daan Retief/Knowledge Unlimited also had to close down as a result of the shift in the acquisition policies of public libraries." Mentioned again in a 2013 Afrikaans doctoral thesis. I couldn't find any mentions in the National Library of South Africa. It seems like the most likely place to find sources that could meet WP:NCORP are newspaper articles between 1990 and 2000, discussing its closure. (I am not aware of any open access database that archives South African newspapers, so I agree with @Lamona that someone else will have to find such sources.) Suriname0 (talk) 17:01, 27 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!} 22:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Peyton[edit]

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

I really could not find any sources to help add to this page, and the ones that are there are no help at all. One large sessionography and then a minor mention from the New York Times in an article about someone else. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profiles in [1] and [2] and [3]. Gets a bit of a coverage in [4] and a couple paragraphs in [5] and in the NYTimes article cited. Seems to be a brief review of his album here. Passing in [6]. Newspapers.com cites a number of brief reviews of his two man band latitude. I think it adds up to GNG, albeit maybe not a clear cut case. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't feel that it's enough substantial coverage. (But kudos on the awesome source collecting.) I did see the Flying article when doing my Google Books search, but felt that it really didn't count towards GNG considering its brevity, similar to the NYT article. Those two just seem like decent mentions in articles largely about others. The two entries from the Poughkeepsie Journal are pretty good overviews of him, but its also just local coverage. The Boston Phoenix, Albuquerque Journal, and JazzTimes entries are brief but I would say that they are significant coverage. I'm just unsure if they're enough to establish GNG. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree it's borderline, but I think the geographic distribution of the sourcing and range of years (1977 to 2003 by my count) in summation add up to GNG. I'll add that we shouldn't discount the Poughkeepsie Journal (although by itself it wouldn't establish GNG), as WP:AUD has never been extended to WP:NPERSON (despite proposals to do so). I'd consider it more regional than local coverage, considering its scope and circulation. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as overall there is enough coverage identified above to pass WP:GNG. Also note that articles that contain significant overage of a subject which is not the main topic of the article still count for GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Flying piece is bordering on its depth of coverage and the Cash Box piece seems trivial, but I think the Boston Phoenix and Poughkeepsie Journal pieces, combined with the middling-coverage of The New York Times piece in the article do show notability enough to just barely squeak by WP:GNG in that it's significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's not the strongest claim to notability, mind you, but it does meet the letter of WP:GNG and I think Eddie891's comment about the range of years that the sources span is a good point; this isn't some blip in coverage that came and went but is a long-lasting demonstration of the continuing notability and relevance of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 22:59, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Andargachew[edit]

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. I've searched online in English and Amharic language sources and can't find anything other than Wikipedia mirrors, database entries and the like. PROD was contested without showing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There aren't enough sources to indicate notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Agree with nom. --Dark Juliorik (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:18, 22 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!} 22:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace secret shows[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:GNG; all coverage I found was routine concert announcements and the like, and I have a hard time imagining how even significant coverage would demonstrate notability outside of MySpace itself. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I never heard of a Myspace secret show before. I guess they keep their secret pretty well... LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The user who created the page back in 2009, Myspaceprograms, may have made it up, or have been involved in its creation, judging from the similar usernames. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:41, 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!} 07:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ibold[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any coverage of this person in reliable sources which would indicate that WP:BIO can be met. SmartSE (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. SmartSE (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opting not for soft deletion. Has someone considered the sources linked on the TP?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. We are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lamona placed some sources on the article talk page. I have reviewed these but it doesn't change my mind about not meeting BIO, as the mentions are brief and provide no biographical information. SmartSE (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I have searched online and was able to verify that the article's subject did exist, but nothing that would contribute to the notability of the subject or warrant an article on Wikipedia. I also reviewed the two sources presented on the article's talk page and they are both very much trivial mentions that wouldn't contribute to notability in any way - Aoidh (talk) 00:16, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rorshacma (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Shadows[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I initially WP:PRODed it with the following rationale: "A film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. It is currently unsourced, and I was unable to find any reviews in reliable source. Its only claim to notability in the article is getting second place in a minor film festival award." The PROD was removed with the explanation that it was ineligible as it had previously gone to AFD, though I think this may just be technicality in this case, as the only AFD I could find with the name appears to be about a completely different topic that just happened to have the same name (see here). Rorshacma (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR - Sufficient sources have been found to establish notability, so I am withdrawing the nomination.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Rorshacma (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is borderline, I found a review from SBS News and one from Crikey, which is generally reliable but not the best ref per a RSN discussion (added these to the article, but haven't expanded it). There's also a radio discussion about this film on ABC. It might meet WP:GNG, albeit very weakly, though this definitely fails WP:NFILM criteria 1 (SBS News critic is at least well known enough to be on RT, but the Crikey review and ABC one are certainly not nationally well known) and criteria 3, as it's only a finalist for an audience award, the claim is also unsourced. IMO this is borderline and I'm neutral, Rorshacma, what do you think of these refs? Many thanks! VickKiang 23:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article vastly improved and meets WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Thanks User:Cabrils! VickKiang 02:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd say the SBS review would almost certainly qualify as significant coverage, and, for what its worth, Rotten Tomatoes considers both SBS as a publication and Simon Foster as an individual to be RT certified critics. The Crikey review is much less in-depth, and I am honestly not familiar enough with it to make a clear decision on whether a short review in it would qualify as significant coverage in a reliable source. If other editors believe it would, then I agree that the film would very narrowly pass the WP:GNG. I'll leave this AFD up for now, but if other editors chime in leaning toward Keeping, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the two above there is others such as a review in the Sun Herald, 1 November 2009 by Tom Ryan. Plus article "Cinemas vanish in shadows" by Rob Bates in Wentworth Courier, 11 November 2009. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I've added several RS reviews (eg from The Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Advertiser), mostly via ProQuest database news search (so apologies to those that can't easily access the reviews). Seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM now. Cabrils (talk) 02:10, 22 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 Military patrol at the 1948 Winter Olympics. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Dvořák[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, did a before search that didn't yield any results to establish notability. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSBASIC. I would support a redirect to Military patrol at the 1948 Winter Olympics as an alternative to deletion. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 15:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (if no more sources come to light) to Military patrol at the 1948 Winter Olympics - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 18:48, 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!} 05:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourtemolo[edit]

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

Notability. The inventor has no article, otherwise I'd redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – my search found no indications of notability, and I agree that there's no good redirect target (it was mentioned at Music of Turkey, but I removed that due to sourcing/promo issues). Fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Art needs time to be recognised. It is a long process. This technique is brand new for the baglama. Therefore, at the moment it is hard to redirect it. There is a thesis that has been written about it, which is the only genuine resource about the technique. user:Dreamboy3143 03:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREISNORUSH. If this is deleted and its popularity grows and other people begin writing about it, it could have an article in the future. A simple deletion here doesn't mean it can't be recreated if there are additional sources to show notability. See WP:G4 for some guidelines about potentially recreating it to avoid future deletions/issues. Skynxnex (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further evaluation of the article's expansion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any non-self published sources. Skynxnex (talk) 17:42, 26 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. ✗plicit 14:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reynold Ginier[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. Before search didn't yield any third party sources to establish notability, and has no medal record in European Championships or Olympics. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSBASIC. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 14:10, 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. There is one "keep" opinion, which admits that "the text does suffer from a lack of sources" - which seals its fate in the light of WP:V and WP:GNG. Sandstein 09:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanasis Triaridis[edit]

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

There are a few sources on this author, but I feel they do not match general notability guideline. Most of those are in not Reliable sources and those mentions on RS, do not discuss Thanasis Triarides in extent. Without secondary reliable sources, it is impossible to write a tertiary encyclopedic article.

Some in text external sources are used as References of the article, which do not actually verify the source (for example, see sentence "His novel Lemonmellons was considered blasphemous and pornographic;..."

The article was created by a SPA, with a WP:COI (@Galat05: works for the publishing house Digma, [7] which is owned by Triarides [8] ("Οι εκδόσεις δήγμα ξεκίνησαν το φθινόπωρο του 2009 από τους συγγραφείς Θανάση Τριαρίδη και Κυριάκο Αθανασιάδη". which translates as "Digma Publishing was founded by Thanasis Triarides and Kiriakos Athanasiadis in 2009"). The article looks like an advertisement of a "rebellious" author. Even, at his personal webpage, at the ID section, he links to this article[9] Cinadon36 21:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, and Theatre. Cinadon36 21:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I copied the inline links to refs (although I didn't fix the placement of most of them). I removed the links to the publisher's site and to blogs. What remains is still very promotional and needs additional sources. I did find one link to support some of the biographical information: [10], but it is not independnt. Because I cannot search Greek sources, I'm just leaving this here. English language sources have not convinced me this is a "keep". Lamona (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.philenews.com/politismos/prosopa/article/865008In Greece is very famous. I will write to you some articles and with translate by Google you will verified his notability.

https://www.athinorama.gr/theatre/2527242/thanasis_triaridis_enas_suggrafeas_pou_ftanei_sta_akra/

https://www.kathimerini.gr/life/people/1052649/th-triaridis-aichmiros-politikos-tryferos/amp/

https://www.monopoli.gr/2019/03/26/people/314666/thanasi-triaridi-giati-oi-iroes-sou-einai-dolofonoi/

http://www.greek-theatre.gr/public/gr/greekplay/index/view/55

https://www.documentonews.gr/article/thanasis-triaridis-arnoymai-na-vraveyto-apo-ena-kratos-poy-skotonei-anthropoys/

and hundred others.... ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. Other than the first one (which seems to be a name check) the rest of the are substantially about him. I have no idea if these publications are considered reliable sources, but perhaps someone here knows. The articles above don't, AFAIK, fill in all of the missing links in the article. Not that that would change the deletion question, but the article itself is in poor shape. Fixing that could keep it from being nominated for deletion again in the future. (I'm still not !voting since I don't know enough to decide.) Lamona (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lamona, thanks for asking. Apart from Kathimerini, and phileleftheros, rest are not RS, in my opinion. But what is problematic, those two articles do not provide adequate info about Triarides himself. They focus on a play that is about to be open in Athens (Kathimerini) or Nicosia (philenews). It is more about a play rather on the author. My point is that we do not have adequate info by RS on him. He himself wasnt the centre of attention of the community. Some article, somewhat promotional, before a play is held, hmmmm, I am not sure if we should rely on them to establish notability. Cinadon36 04:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC) PS: Athinorama: it is like tripadvisor for Athens only. It lists Restaurants, bars and clubs events, places to go with kids, nightlife, events, theatres and so on. It is quite evident from its webpage [11] Note that "about us" link is not actually a link. Monopoli.gr, greek-theatre are very small publications, almost unknown, even in Greece. Documentonews is a left leaning tabloid, I wouldnt consider it RS because of the many times got caught spreading fake news. see for example this fact checking site [[12]. None of the above mentioned sites can prove their reliability or that they are considered reliable. I feel they fail WP RS. )Cinadon36 06:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Triaridis is a renowned Greek writer, with dozens of references to him and his work. The text does suffer from a lack of sources - but it is certainly encyclopaedic. That's why the Greek article never raised the issue of deletion. (sorry for my English) ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If substantial reliable sources about the subject are not found and cited in the article, then the article should not be kept, especially if there is a COI issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the sources I gave above, in Greece are among the most reliable, and are much used in the Greek Wikipedia

if you want to understand what exactly is going on with this article, see here. https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Συζήτηση:Θανάσης_Τριαρίδης (discussion page of the greek article)

try to translate it into English and you will understand. ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 13:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single citation in this whole article gives the essentials of a citation: The author's name, the title of the article or book, the name of the newspaper or publisher, date and, if applicable, the page number. If this subject is a playwright, there should be reviews of his plays in major newspapers. When and where were the plays produced? Who directed and starred? How long did they run? Were his novels on any bestseller lists? What did the critics say about them? Are there collections published of his stories, poetry or other writings? Has no newspaper or magazine ever written a feature about him that mentions bibliographic information? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Chesalov[edit]

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

Was deleted through prod back in 2019 since it met neither NFOOTY or GNG, and nothing has changed since then, other than NFOOTY being deprecated, but even if it was still in existence, they would not meet it. Was sent to Draft in the hopes of improvement, but was immediately moved back without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage. Fifthapril (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:18, 22 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!} 22:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Baena[edit]

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

Notability. The mens health article (the sole cite and a slim one imo) describes him as an aspiring actor....not promising. I doubt if anbody would be paying any attention if he had a different father. TheLongTone (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can find a lot of sources about him but the article is written poorly and does not provide any information. It's hardly a 1-2 lines article. I think Wikipedia can keep it if the article is written properly with proper citations. Fifthapril (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He's got coverage in People [13] and the dancing on the stars thing. This in USA Today [14] seems to have enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Source check
  - The People article isn't helpful on notability grounds, since it is either entirely quotes from the subject (quotes by the subject do not count as independent content) or insignificant coverage (of the scandal caused by his conception).
  - The USA Today article however does have slight significant information (namely "Joseph Baena, 21, after his youngest child graduated from Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, on Saturday.") so it might support notability.
  - The Deadline article about his audition for Dancing with the Stars also has slight significant information with "Like his pop, Baena is an Olympic lifter. He also works as a real estate agent and would like to act, apparently."
  - Similar information is also imparted in this LA Times article: "But when Baena, who’s also a real estate agent with Aria Properties in Marina del Rey, decided to try his hand at acting a few years back..."
- — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep as it seems likely that GNG-compliant sources for Baena can be found. In addition, an editor's opinion that a person's career is insignificant does not automatically entitle article deletion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding enough references to show that the person is notable. Article is being fleshed out now. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for several sourced reasons (none of them involving who his father is, although there is nothing wrong with mentioning Arnold and his exploits on the page). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that he has just been announced for the cast of the upcoming season of Dancing With the Stars is... something. BD2412 T 00:32, 22 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. ✗plicit 11:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Waley-Cohen[edit]

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

I'm unable to find coverage to indicate that WP:BIO is met. SmartSE (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 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. Feel free to create a redirect from this deleted title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jørgen Christensen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search does not bring any SIGCOV; barely any coverage at all, actually. BilletsMauves^€500 08:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nom. Also done my own search and haven’t found anything that provides significant coverage. Fats40boy11 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - unless there are other people with the same name that he might get confused with, a redirect to List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps) should be considered Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 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. ✗plicit 03:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IDAPT[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Searching for data all I found were a couple of reviews for their charger, no substantial cover. Muhandes (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Spain. Muhandes (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article ineligible for soft deletion; was PROD'ed in 2011.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. While "idapt" in various capitalizations (including i-dapt) is a surprisingly common name for various things which makes it hard to search for this company in particular, I couldn't find anything that would support notability for this article's subject. What few product reviews exist do not give notability to the company that made said product, per WP:INHERIT (and that's ignoring that even those reviews are scarce and wouldn't even generate enough notability for said products). - Aoidh (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have researched this for a few hours and I don’t see this meeting GNG or NCORP. Creamjuice (talk) 02:35, 22 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. ✗plicit 11:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Games (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Current refs are all trivial entries failing WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, including trailers and databases, except a non-reliable WordPress review and a streaming/shopping service, with most of these refs being unreliable. WP:BEFORE fails to find any more refs, except for blogs (1, 2, 3). This is obviously non-notable and should be deleted (and it also has a 1.6/10 rating on IMDb). VickKiang 10:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests this meets NFILM/GNG.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT. I don't doubt that probably a decent article could be written about SAIACS, but the article in its current state ain't it. The current article borders on qualifying for WP:G11, since it is written in a promotional tone and would need to be rewritten to be encyclopaedic. I have tried to look for a clean version in its history, but couldn't find anything salvageable. $Salvio$ 09:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAIACS is a prominent seminary in India. No need to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.67.132 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG. AfD is for deletion not cleanup and even the proposer appears to think the topic is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, trimming the promo material wouldn't be very difficult. Jahaza (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see issue with notability. Lorstaking (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the nominator does not doubt the notability of the topic but is nominating on the basis of the tone of the article being advertorial but that can be addressed by a rewrite rather than deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG subject is notable.Saturnrises (talk) 07:16, 27 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 Fight Club. Minimal useful/encyclopedic content to merge, so not bothering with a merge tag. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Street Soap Co.[edit]

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

Entirely WP:OR article that fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Film. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cannot see any evidence that the boxing club ostensibly named after the fictional company is not simply a coincidence, the personal care product company's website citation appears defunct, and the only remaining citation is literally WP:GOOGLE. Even if these two businesses were truly named after the fictional one, they are not notable, and I saw no sources suggesting that the fictional company has had any cultural relevance otherwise. ~~Although even if I had, that would only have justified a recommendation to merge to Fight Club#Cultural impact, but this isn't worthy of even that.~~ ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 08:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Seeing the sources that have been dug up, I suppose I'm neutral on a merge, but I'm okay with a redirect. If the option of merging or redirecting to Fight Club is supported by everyone else, then sure. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 23:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Fight Club. There is You Do Not Talk About Fight Club, doing some discussion, and with "The Politics of Boredom" a secondary source attesting to some cultural impact. So this should be treated in some form on Wikipedia, though I guess that's not enough for a standalone article. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Daranios. I trust he did a good review of sources available. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: don't really see anything significant here. I get that people reference Palaniuk's work in general, but that's appropriately covered at the main Fight Club article. At best, these minor references are references to the overall work, and nothing significant about the fictional concept within the work. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first source is more an analysis of soap imagery in the film in general, and the second source is a passing mention. The existence of real-life companies means nothing; virtually any fake product from popular media will have someone making webpages, unauthorized T-shirts, etc. for it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fight Club per Daranios and Piotrus possibly with very selective merging, but I also concur with Delete per nom if that's more popular. A WP:BEFORE search shows WP:GNG failed, we could merge some referenced content to Fight Club. Still, given that the refs cover this very trivially with just two mentions, at best we could only merge there with a very short one or two sentence mention. VickKiang 22:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fight Club as a plausible search term. I'm really not seeing anything currently in the article that would be appropriate for an actual merger. I have no issues if any of the information in the sources brought up above is added to the target article, but since that information is not currently in this one, a merger would not be necessary for that. Rorshacma (talk) 21:23, 26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avanish Kumar[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Appears to be an autobiography, and is thus WP:ADMASQ. Fails WP:NFILMMAKER. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely autobio promo piece, with the sources cited falling way short of WP:GNG, and no indication of WP:DIRECTOR etc. notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fully promotional page.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable autobiography. See also Kanwalpreet Singh (actor). Maduant (talk) 21:08, 23 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 00:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A2Z Baguio[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, originally moved to draft but reverted back to main space. Station fails WP:BCAST. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subchannel table should be made generic, moved to A2Z (Philippine TV channel), and then this article with A2Z Iloilo, DXEX-DTV, DXEV-DTV, and DYNZ-DTV should be redirected. There is no case for individual notability of the transmitters (many of which are very new). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sammi Brie: A2Z Baguio does not exist, so I guess it should be delete. I assume that this is a hoax for now. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah yes, Philippine TV vandalism. Changing to Delete for this page — but my point applies just the same to the other articles and the actual new stations and should be heeded by the Philippines TV editors. There is no reason to create articles the moment a transmitter goes up if there is not significant coverage in reliable sources. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potential hoax. No hits on Google News and News Archives. Google search only provided questionable Facebook results. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for potential WP:HOAX. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. No existence of this A2Z station in Baguio. SBKSPP (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that this station exists, so it is a hoax. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disputed draftification Unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Sammi Brie. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:56, 25 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 06:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ThoughtTreasure[edit]

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

No independent sources in a decade. Nothing obviously independent in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:54, 13 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!} 05:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article was pretty clearly created by the person responsible for authoring this software in an attempt to promote it. It has 12 followers on github and no updates since 2015. I find some refs, at last one of which is authorised by the guy who posted updates on GitHub and wrote this article, but not in depth coverage in multiple RIS. Mccapra (talk) 05:48, 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. Thin consensus, but with more relists than votes it's time to put this discussion out of its misery. Star Mississippi 01:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G. Raj Kumar[edit]

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

Bio of the former deputy mayor of Hyderabad, recently deceased. Deputy mayor is not a role that makes the subject notable under WP:NPOL and the Tamil and Telegu articles don’t offer better sourcing to show a GNG pass, just routine announcements. Mccapra (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Mccapra (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 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!} 06:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems to be of local interest & even if he'd passed GNG, the article should be rewritten ("If he were still alive today he would have been 69 years old"). --Suitskvarts (talk) 09:34, 15 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!} 05:05, 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tartron, Arizona[edit]

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

Non notable rail siding. –dlthewave ☎ 04:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 04:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newspapers.com indicates that some people were "of Tartran" in 1913.[15]. Newspapers.com indicates that there was a station there in 1915.[16]. GBooks indicates that in 1933 it was a siding.[17] However, the station does not meet WP:STATION. The location is not legally recognized, nor is there non-trivial coverage from multiple sources, so WP:GEOLAND is not met. Cxbrx (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cxbrx. A search of Newspaperarchive for "Tartron", restricted to Arizona brings up no results, further indicative of lack of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newspapers.com shows WWI draft dodgers from Tartron in 1917 and a few other misc mentions of people being from Tartron. Book sources say it was a rail stop/station since around 1890, a dirt road went south about 14 miles to the Rawley mines, water available in emergencies at section house. Does not appear to every have been a community. This one has enough mentions that it is a plausible search term and ideally should redirect somewhere, but there is no apparent place to mention it. Southern Pacific Railroad doesn't have that level of detail. MB 03:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. not notable Assirian cat (talk) 09:44, 25 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 Helena, Texas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Duel[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable form of duel, as there do not appear to be multiple independent reliable sources that cover this topic significantly. The sources in the article include:

Four sentences in a 1940s Texas handbook (i.e. non-significant coverage);
A work of fiction (i.e. non-RS);
A blogspot post that doesn't mention "Helena Duel";
Another blog post that doesn't mention "Helena Duel";
A Michael Jackson music video.

I am likewise unable to find significant coverage outside of the sources mentioned in this article, so I propose that this be deleted as failing to meet the relevant notability criteria in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--

These are fair points! I wonder if this is better represented as folklore rather than fact. It seems notable enough that several books and movies reference this, including one explicitly set in the town in question (the article of which also mentions this type of duel). There is also a sv.wiki page that references a parallel duel and calls it out as folklore, and it seems notable because art has been made of it. I made some edits to the page to reflect this alternative approach. What do folks think? :) -- Mxbndr (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Duel or List of duels. While this topic hardly seems notable or significant enough to have a standalone article, it likely merits a brief mention on one or both of those pages. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 13:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Redirect to Helena, Texas per valid points about notability as subject pertains to duels generally raised by Red-tailed hawk. However, I would change my vote back to merge, if any additional sources justifying it were to be found. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 20:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The inclusion criteria for List of duels is notable one-on-one duels or single combats in history and in legend or fiction, which would disqualify a merger there if the Helena Duel is non-notable. And frankly a redirect to duel seems not appropriate given that the only time that this sort of thing is covered is in the context of Helena, Texas rather than in the context of books that write about duels; the way the 1940 Texas handbook reads, this form of duel seems apocryphal. A redirect to the town might be fine, but in general the content in the "in the media" section are WP:OR while the substance of the content in the lead is already in that article, so I don't really see a need to merge anything. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  In that case, I'll be changing my vote to redirect. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 20:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Helena, Texas. I did find a mention in a footnote in an old thesis [18] but... that's a far cry from WP:SIGCOV. At least the source I found confirms this is not a hoax, but there is no reason to have this stand-alone article. This kind of borderline trivia can be covered in the article about that town, as part of its history section. That will be enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is the best way to solve lack of notability of the article's subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assirian cat (talk • contribs) 09:45, 25 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 Cold Equations. Selecting redirect as a ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Stowaway (2014 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Prod contested on talk page. hinnk (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Entertainment. Gilded Snail (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Before search returned no results for me, talk page PROD (imdb views) objection reason has no impact on notability, fails GNG and probably NFILM too. Justi yaya 04:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the only straightforward dramatisation of The Cold Equations, which is a very notable SF short story. --GwydionM (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any true coverage of the short. It did win an award at Shriekfest, but that's not enough on its own to establish notability. If we could find a review or two then that would help immensely, but I just can't locate anything. It's extremely common for this to be an issue with short films, although I will say that I'm surprised that the star power didn't spark any coverage. (Fehr was already known for Roswell, Moseley for the Narnia films, and Molina is well, Molina.) This could redirect to the main article for the story with history, I suppose. That way if more coverage is ever found it can be restored. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:39, 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!} 04:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM. Found no reviews DonaldD23 talk to me 22:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the possibility of a redirect, suggested by an editor in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Could not find significant coverage; while "The Cold Equations" is itself notable, that notability isn't inherited. I don't think a redirect is appropriate. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:19, 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!} 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endevor[edit]

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

I'm posting this on behalf of Doktor Züm, who got stuck during the nomination process. I'm doing so neutrally. (I haven't yet even read the article. Later, perhaps I'll read it and express an opinion on its fate.) I invite Doktor Züm to comment below. -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Hoary.

Despite being tagged for a decade as needing references, this article has none (the existing two references are pathetic); thus it fails WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability and WP:No original research. Also, the article is mostly unreadable to the lay reader, so fails WP:Technical: "The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience." -- Doktor Züm (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I actually understand this article; I used to be a computer programmer on IBM-compatible mainframes. It is, indeed, poorly referenced. Also, it's a how-to. Knowing the subject matter, I don't think an article could be written that successfully demonstrates notability (the subject and this class of software are not really notable). Finally, it would be hard to write this article so that a layperson could understand it--there's too much prior knowledge that would be required.

P.S. The comment above mine also appears to be a "delete" !vote. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the nominator. I want to explain my thinking here in greater detail.

The article can't be saved. There are no reliable sources that I can find. Here are the results from first two pages of a Google search, to give some flavour: 1× unsatisfactory Wikipedia article (I claim); 4× marketing-type websites; 3× tutorials; 2× developer documentation sites (one looks like copyright infringement); 1× blog post; 1× user review forum (very poor); 2x sites that timeout; 2x sites about spelling ("endevor"); 1× long-expired job advert; 1x drinking glasses (same brand name). Good luck getting an encyclopedic article out of that lot. No links to respected press coverage, historical significance, reviews in reliable sources, etc.
No one has added citations to this article, nor opposed this nomination, because it can't be done (I believe). No decent references = not verifiable ~= not notable = must be deleted. Simples.
No references = must be original research. -- Doktor Züm (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Impossibility of rephrasing for a lay readership isn't a valid reason for deletion. (If it were, most maths articles would be doomed.) Neither is prolixity or tedium. But whew, this thing is so prolix and so soporific.... Hoary (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary That's fair, and good to know -- and you're right about the math articles. But I don't think the software is notable, and also, the article didn't demonstrate notability. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right about lack of evidence in the article of notability. As for evidence "out there" of notability, perhaps somebody claiming that the subject is notable would care to point us to some of it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 04:35, 13 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!} 03:22, 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 no consensus. Most of the keep voices speak to GNG rather than NCORP so are not really relevant but the usually reliable source analysis from HighKing (which I also usually give a lot of weight too) doesn't quite get this over the line given reservations expressed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FlyBig[edit]

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

Primarily, the company launch news, too early to create the page. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:29, 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) 22:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The airline has been in operation for nearly two years now and there appears to be plenty of sources that meet WP:ORG. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey FormalDude, I was going to !vote Delete but I thought I'd ask you to link to any two sources that meet NCORP first. Thanks. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  ––FormalDude (talk) 19:57, 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!} 21:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FormalDude's sources (except the Mirror) seem GNG-compliant. It does not matter how new the subject is if GNG-compliant sourcing is around already. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the Bangalore Mirror? ––FormalDude (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't about the reliability of the source, but rather that the company wasn't brought up in that article (maybe you linked the wrong one?) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I did link the wrong one. Thanks, updated. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by FormalDude. Lightburst (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a commercial company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply in addition to GNG. NCORP has specific and particular criteria which must be met in order to establish a company's notability. NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep and significant coverage containing in-depth information *on the company* and also containing "Independent Content". As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail as follows:
- This in the Bangalore India Times examines the future potential of an airplane manufacturing company, HAL , headquartered in Bengaluru. This is based on comments by Big Charter's CFO (affiliated with the topic company). There is no "Independent Content" or in-depth information in that article and it is not a significant article about the topic company. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND.
- This in the Shillong Times is based entirely on information provided by the topic company and the airports authority (AAI) or anonymous "sources". The article is not attributed to a named journalist. Articles relying on anonymous sources are not WP:RS reliable. There is also no "Independent Content" showing an independent opinion/fact checking/investigation/etc which is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the topic company. Article fails WP:RS and ORGIND.
- This from The Economic Times is entirely based on information from an exec, Ratan Ambhore, affiliated with the company. It contains no "Independent Content", merely regurgitates the announcement, fails ORGIND.
- This from Smart Aviation relies entirely on an announcement and information provided by the company with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from The Shillong Times has no attributed journalist which makes it a questionable reliable source. The article itself appears to be in possession of a complaint made by Shillong Airport to the AAI about the topic company and regurgitates the main issues of the complaint, augmented by additional information from an anonymous source "from Shillong Airport". There is no in-depth information on the company. Article fails CORPDEPTH, ORGIND and RS.

None of these sources contain sufficient "Independent Content" and in-depth information about the company, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your dismissal of the The Shillong Times as unreliable and not capable of basic fact checking has no basis, and I'd suggest you take it to WP:RSN if you truly believe that. Your dismissal of all of these sources independence is also unfounded. Just because there's a quote from a company employee does not mean the source is not-independent, especially when most all of them provide significant in-depth background information.

And those sources were just skimming top of the bucket, there's plenty more.

––FormalDude (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please don't misrepresent what I said. I pointed out that there was no attributed journalist for the Shillong Times - but I also pointed out that the article relies on anonymous "sources" and that there' no Independent Content, just repeating what the sources said. I did not say they were unreliable nor incapable of basic fact checking, please read what was actually written. There is *nothing* in that article, nor any of the others, which satisfies the requirement for "Independent Content" where original/independent opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation is *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated with the topic company. Regurgitated announcements and PR is not "Original Content". You also misrepresent the point vis-a-vis quotes. There's nothing wrong with an article using quotes so long as the article *also* meets the criteria - including containing "Independent Content". The problem arises when the article relies entirely on information provided by execs and the company and has no Independent Content. Finally, listing another 7 references which all suffer from the exact same issues doesn't help. If you're so convinced of certain references, simply point to WP:THREE particular references and point to particular paragraphs where each contains in-depth significant details about the company built on original/independent opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the topic company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said about The Shillong Times "There is also no "Independent Content" showing an independent opinion/fact checking/investigation/etc". The source is a reliable established newspaper of record that can surely be trusted to be independent, and that is who it is attributed to. It doesn't matter that's there no author. Furthermore there's no consensus or policy that says the use of an anonymous source makes an otherwise reliable publication not so.

None of these sources are "regurgitated announcements and PR" and you've provided no evidence to support that claim.

That's not how WP:THREE is intended to be invoked (per its author: "Are you trying to argue that a topic needs three sources to be notable? Nope, that's not what this is about."), but here's your three sources:

1. Bangalore Mirror. Attributed to Hemanth CS, independent editor.

Flybig, a regional airline that is gearing up to have its first commercial flight by mid-October under the Ude Desh ka Aam Naagrik (UDAN) project, would become the first airline to launch a new service in the COVID-19 era.

2. Simply Flying. Attributed to Pranjal Pande, independent reporter.

India’s flybig is all set to begin operations today. The carrier will fly its first scheduled route from Indore to Ahmedabad, using an ATR72. Flybig aims to connect smaller towns under the government's UDAN scheme, which offers airlines subsidies for flying such routes.

3. Mint. Attributed to Rhik Kundu, independent correspondent.

The airline will operate turboprop aircraft (a turbine engine that drives an aircraft propeller) like ATR72 and Q400, which can accommodate 70-80 passengers, for regional routes like Shillong-New Delhi, Indore-Ahmedabad, and Indore-Raipur, which have seen good growth potential, especially at a time when the domestic aviation sector is recovering from the covid hit.

––FormalDude (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent Content" is unconcerned with the reputation of the publisher. The focus is on the content. Your *assumption* that reliable/established sources surely can be trusted is misplaced and translates as a form of carte blanche on certain publishers (e.g. Its in the NYT/WSJ therefore must meet the criteria for notability due to the "reputation" of the publisher). This is invalid. Nowhere is this assumption mentioned in NCORP. "Independent Content" must be *clearly attributable* to an unaffiliated source, we don't rely on assumptions. So yes, while it does matter if there's no author, nowhere have I ruled out a source based on that one aspect alone.

The article in Bangalore Mirror isn't about the topic company - as said previously it is about the future prospects for an airline manufacturer based in the region. WP:ORGCRIT requires references where the topic company has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. WP:CORPDEPTH requires deep or significant coverage that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the company. This article is neither about the topic company and the single sentence (because that's more than 50% of what is in the article *about* the airline) you've highlighted is neither deep nor significant.
The article in Simply Flying has a lot of information but appears to appropriate information from other references which is links to. It immediately refers to an earlier article in the same publication (which in turn links to other sources) as well as MoneyControl (which gets all its info from the CEO), Planespotter.net and other articles from Simple Flying (the same publication). It does have one paragraph where the author appears to have checked the website, personally, and looked up the prices for a one-way ticket to Ahmedabad so there's at least one aspect of the article that is clearly attributable to the author directly. Everything else in the article is available in other articles and in other sources - I really can't see how this meets ORGIND without making huge assumptions and ignoring other earlier articles containing the same info.
The Mint article dated Jan 2021 relies entirely on information/comments from the CEO. The paragraph you've pointed to contains nothing new. We've seen previously that in Sept 2020 the company had planned to use ATR 72s and it was reported by the CEO in an interview in Dec 2020 they'd taken delivery. It was also reported earlier that they'd leased a Q400. We've seen previous mentions of the impact of Covid. What exactly do you see in that paragraph that shows that any of that information is *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated with the company - especially seeing as it had all been announced previously? The rest of the article clearly relies on information provided by the CEO. There is no "Independent Content" whatsoever in this article, just a regurgitation of information already known, new quotes/info from the CEO and a summary.

I don't think we'll agree here. For me, I can clearly see that all of the references can trace the information/data to company PR and announcements and interviews/quotations of one sort of another (although it does take a wee effort to actually look). HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we won't agree, since you're continuing to baselessly claim these sources don't have significant coverage and independence. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You've had plenty of opportunity to provide clear-cut page numbers and paragraph numbers to make your case. I suppose since I've called you out on your attempts to misrepresent what I've said, name calling is about all you've left. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call you any names nor misrepresent what you said, please don't cast aspersions. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:02, 24 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!} 03:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Length of operation has nothing to do with notability unlesss you make the general case of a company that has been about for so long that your parents know about it, making it generational, hence you see a large number of very old companies having articles on Wikipedia. Looking at as it company, its fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS, two aspects of WP:NCORP. I looked at two blocks of refs and not one of them is a real secondary source. It is either PR (it's a perfect flightplan), schedule listings, press-released based information or in-world, i.e. ref for company regs. No secondary sourcing at all. Looking at the block, more scheduling and press-releases. The references above are from press-releases, for example " Flybig, India's newest airline, to begin operations today: All you need to know". Straight-up PR. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't say I agree with the characterisation that no source is independent. Containing quotes from employees doesn't make a source not independent, relying on third parties or anonymous sources to obtain information doesn't make a source not independent and the assertions that these are all regurgitation of press releases, announcements, other PR material, etc is unsupported. Most of the material in the sources (the list of news articles) provided by FormalDude are simply presented as facts without attribution to any other party, hence they are solely attributable to their respective publications and authors. To state that this material is not independent is to work on an assumption that all of these publications and their authors are either engaging in undisclosed promotion and/or churnalism, i.e their reliability is questionable.

I will not say that such an assumption is completely unjustified, if anything a certain degree of skepticism is necessary in this area but one can not make this assumption and still claim that it doesn't concern the reputation of the publisher. Indian media does have a significant problem with undisclosed promotion, paid news, etc but to sort through that, one requires a case by case consideration and not a blanket dismissal of all sources. Different publications have different standards, practises, reputation, etc and they should be brought to WP:RSN if one thinks there are problems with certain publications. As far as I am concerned, the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:NORG, there are some weaker sources, some routine coverage in the list but there is independent significant coverage as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per WP:ORGIND, the onus is fully on the source to contain "Independent Content" that is *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company. Quotes from employees are not independent. Regurgitating PR is not independent. If you're saying that these sources are OK then link to them and point to the paragraphs where it contains in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are trying to get at but when a source says something in its own voice, then that material is "clearly attributable" to that source, you seem to have just assumed that it is "regurgitating PR" for which I see no basis. Quotes themselves form a minor part in those articles where they are present and the sources are also already linked above. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for a link to whatever it is you believe meets NCORP.... when you provide that, we can debate something concrete...I've already responded to FormalDude's points above. According to what you're saying, if an article summarises information, that makes it their "own voice" and meets NCORP - that isn't the case at all, that does not make that article meet WP:ORGIND's requirement for "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources from Siasat, the Shillong Times, and Bangalore Mirror look quite decent to me. Yes, there's statements from the company, but there's also material in the papers' own voices, and it's not as trivial information as it's made out to be. I usually give a lot of weight to HighKing's analysis, but I think they're being too stringent here. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 28 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 Money order. Reasonable search term, WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Payment order[edit]

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

The present article appears to have avoided CopVio by adding OR. As for having an article with this title on Wiki, used in Alice-in-Wonderland style, varying by who is doing the ordering (judge, post office customer) and who is being ordered (non-custody parent, financial institution). Debt collection is still another usage. As for conditional orders, and a series of orders. It can also refer to the sequence of pending outstanding payments (high to low, to ensure mortgage payments vs. charge cards, as contrasted with date sequence). There were only two wikilinks to this title. One I had recently made, admittedly without a What Links Here. The other place, a Medieval subsection, I resolved with a rewording. Nuts240 (talk) 17:11, 16 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...} 02:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to money order, which this article does not clearly distinguish itself from. The entire content of this article, apart from the definition, is a few unsourced sentences that don't constitute a coherent article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 13 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!} 03:13, 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. ✗plicit 13:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluecast, Indiana[edit]

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

Another case of a late appearance in the topos, but in this case searching was readily fruitful, and this page from the people who now own the property explains all. "Blue Cast" (note the space) was a "Magnetic Springs and Sanitarium", which operated from 1902 up to the depression, with some interruptions and many changes of ownership. The place names book gets the name origin correct, but calls the spot a "village", which appears unjustified. The location is wrong too: the ruins are marked on all those topos that do not record any such place name. So, not an unincorporated community or town and anything of the sort. Possibly the spa itself was notable, but that's a different article. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 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)} 19:03, 13 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!} 03:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches returned only advertisements for the sanitarium, no independent coverage or evidence that a community existed here. –dlthewave ☎ 05:13, 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. ✗plicit 13:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Machine (toy)[edit]

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

Over-reliance on primary sources, lacks reliable secondary sources, and promotional tone. I would have proposed a merge into Steve Jackson (American game designer), except I cannot find any reliable sources to support any of the text being kept. — Gmarmstrong (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. — Gmarmstrong (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like it's a very minor if somewhat cool thing in some American game(?) fandom. I am not seeing any serious, reliable sources meeting WP:SIGCOV. Ping User:BOZ just in case. Ps. While the article is very low quality now, this EL, with "featured on the "Today Show" and "Good Morning America"... Featured by more than 15 museums and 200 schools across the counry", although cringe-worthy in its unabashed old style advertising lingo, suggests there is a shred of hope if someone can track the sources (although the lingo and the webpage look so bad I am mildly wondering if this is not a hoax page?).. See also the awards. On the other hand, the connection between the article which is about a toy collection of Steve Jackson and this company's website is rather unclear, except the picture/diagram of both suggests some common features. Anyway, right now it's a big pile of OR with next to no apparent GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see this update at by User:Mkudra on their talk page. Mkdura originally reverted my WP:PROD, hence this AFD discussion, but it seems they have changed their mind and they now approve of the proposal to delete the page. I am not sure what our standard protocol is in this case. If the PROD were to be replaced, it would still need to stand for another 7 days before being confirmed. — Gmarmstrong (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, technically we have to go through this AfD now, unless folks vote speedy delete. But I don't think this is a case of speedy, no hurry, let's discuss this over the next week+. Maybe someone can dig something up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, happy to wait. It could be a neat article if someone could find a way to substantiate it (or maybe even a Chaos Toy page, which probably should have existed before Chaos Machine (toy) anyways). — Gmarmstrong (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - It is mentioned very briefly at the article for Steve Jackson (American game designer), so I was considering possibly recommending a Redirect. However, there is almost no context or explanation of the topic at that article, and as mentioned by the nomination, the lack of reliable sources on the topic means that there is no real way to expand it at all. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 04:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Church of Christ[edit]

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

I have only been able to find references to individual churches named some variation of "Baptist Church of Christ" with no apparent denominational connection. Google Books has also only turned up references to individual churches. Somebody more well-versed than me may be able to find something but I think it's doubtful. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 02:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 02:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: obviously the article needs a lot of work, but the fact that it had an entry in the Encyclopedia Americana should have been a big enough clue that it was notable. Having said that, second source notes that it includes the Elk River and Duck River Associations, (which suggests that it was (what later became) the General Association of Baptists), but then says it was part of what became the American Baptist Churches USA. So I'm still trying to get my head around all the groups. St Anselm (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is the thing to read. (As a side note, the existence of this book is going to make pretty much any 19th century denomination notable.) St Anselm (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three clear direct references is enough for me! I'll withdraw :) (and clearly need to work on my Google Books skills) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 04:53, 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 Queen Zixi of Ix. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noland (Oz)[edit]

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

There isn't meaningful coverage in reliable third-party sources to build an encyclopedic article, as per WP:GNG. A review of the sources finds either trivial mentions or material that can only support a plot summary, which are WP:NOT sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Jontesta (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen Zixi of Ix, the book in which it was featured in. Much like in the AFD for Ix, there is no coverage in reliable sources that would justify a separate article, and its role in the plot of the book is already described at the main article for that, but redirecting there would be a reasonable WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, fails GNG as written. I wonder how did I miss it, I thought I did a review of Land of Oz topics a while back. Maybe I got distrated and never finished it... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the settings section of Queen Zixi of Ix in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. To the closer of this article, I ask that you expand the setting section to include information that would talk about Noland. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen Zixi of Ix, while several characters associated with Noland appear to have some sort of coverage on Google Scholar, the place itself is only mentioned in passing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above Andre🚐 16:59, 25 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in the Drones Club Stories[edit]

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

These characters do not have significant coverage in reliable third party sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Sources show passing mentions or less, with no meaningful coverage to reach notability. Jontesta (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The primary characters are already listed at Drones Club#Members. The characters that are actually major enough to warrant a plot blurb are already described at List of P. G. Wodehouse characters, making this an unnecessary split off of the main topic. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with Rorshacma. Most of these entries are effectively blank, or a single sentence. Some of these have independent articles but even those appear to be questionably notable, without significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. More appropriate to cover this at Drones Club. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had a look at a couple of examples in Garrison's Who's who in Wodehouse. Stiffy Stiffham gets 23 words there; McGarry gets 26 words; Mavis Peasemarch gets 35 words (all approximately). I don't think we require this to be an independent list. Any cited material can be merged to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters, or another suitable target, if it isn't already there. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Drones Club. Fails SIGCOV. Haueirlan (talk) 06:21, 26 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Clarkson[edit]

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

Unable to find sources that meet WP:BASIC. The ones I can find are either deprecated or trivial. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find some passing articles about them but they were not in-depth or of any real quality. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also I wasn't able to find much to meet WP:BASIC. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Usual British tabloid stuff found ("40 yr old model attracting men half her age"). She's mentioned briefly in articles on IGN and a few other sites discussing the various Lara Croft iterations over the years, nothing in-depth. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Los Beat 4[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of sources in English and Spanish to support their entry: Historia social de la música popular en Chile, 1950-1970 [19], Psychedelic Chile: Youth, Counterculture, and Politics on the Road to Socialism and Dictatorship [20], En La Quebrá Del Ají. Rock En Chile En Tiempos De Revolución, 1967, 1973 [21] (pg. 190), Sonido, música y actitud en el rock chileno de los años sesenta [22] (pg. 15), and whatever more you may need. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add them to the article and then I'll just close this AfD as a keep. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Why? I Ask's sourcing. Looking at them myself they do provide sigcov and clearly show independent academic attention. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There are reliable sources in the article to support their notability, plus as Why! I Ask and Mello say, there is more we can add. Antonio Member of the 20 years club Martin (say whaaattttt?) 04:24, 20 September, 2022 (UTC)
Comment We can all end this if y'all will just update the article with the sources to make this pass WP:BAND, it will take whole minutes on y'alls part. If you can do this then I'll just end this. If I was a subject matter expert I would just add it myself but I'm not and there for shouldn't make those edits. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, the responsibility is with you. Speaking of whole minutes of work, perhaps you could have found all those same sources during a WP:BEFORE search, instead of just sending it to AfD with nothing but a two-word reason. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to sources found by the other voters above, via Google Books one can see that this band is frequently covered in histories of Chilean entertainment. The article could probably be fleshed out with a much more robust history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My own exhaustive search on this subject finds it to be notable with an abundance of reliable sources and mentions in literature relating to the history of the Chilean entertainment industry. Creamjuice (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've started adding sources and rewriting the page. Please feel free to withdraw, now. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article now has sources that support notability. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:52, 22 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Grant (comedian)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:POLITICIAN Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Washington, D.C.. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is listed in twinkle as previously being deleted but I can't find any proof of that. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 00:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond mentions of him running for election, his comedy career is routine from the sources I see (listed in various events). Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Grant (comedian) can quite possibly become the mayor of the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.), so he automatically deserves his own Wikipedia page just like Muriel Bowser, as he is still in the mayoral election. AfroWorld33 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muriel Bowser has a page because she has won an election. Just running in an election doesn't mean you're notable enough for a wikipedia article. We routinely remove candidates running for election who are from minor parties or are very unlikely to win the election. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, WP:TOOSOON, not yet notable by WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:POLITICIAN. As a comedian, he's appeared on a few notable shows, but I can't find significant coverage of this in independent, reliable sources, just passing mentions. As a politician, he's had only the routine local coverage any candidate for mayor of a major city would receive. The exception to this is the articles on him in the Washington Informer, but that doesn't meet the criteria for significant coverage from multiple sources. No prejudice against re-creation if he wins the election. Storchy (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah or if his campaign becomes notable in someway but for now this is WP:TOOSOON Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:50, 22 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.