< September 21	September 23 >

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus seems to be divided mostly between "keep" and "merge". (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 23:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Songs I Wrote with Amy[edit]

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

Did not find coverage to meet notability. Not certain if sugarscape.com source is good or not but it alone is not enough and the other sources definitely don't clear. QuietHere (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. QuietHere (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There's this, [1], or this [2] not sure if it's RS.Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will argue against the first as being primarily about the artists rather than the EP itself; it doesn't mention any of the songs from the EP by name nor get into much specific detail about it, and in fact only names the EP itself twice, and rather is discussing her relationship with the then-unknown Sheeran. The latter has the same issues except the EP is only named once. Thank you for finding both of those, I don't think I saw them in my search (or maybe I skipped over 'em accidentally), but I don't see them as usable here. Could be good for Ed's and Amy's articles though. QuietHere (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also worth mentioning that I came across this article because of its addition to List of 2010 albums, and that that entry has since been removed on the grounds that the SugarScape source isn't primarily about the EP either (and looking at it again it clearly isn't, dunno why I didn't realise that earlier) which would bring us down to zero sources for this article. And that revert also seems to suggest that Mburrell agrees with me at least about the article not currently being sufficient, though I don't wanna assume their opinion nor ping them here for risk of violating vote brigading rules (though admittedly I have no idea if this would constitute a violation, but I'd rather be safe than sorry). QuietHere (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to 5 (Ed Sheeran album), which includes this entire EP and actually charted in several countries. I think Oaktree b's sources are good... trouble is, all they say is "Wadge wrote an EP with Ed Sheeran", and nothing else. And the Sugarscape source, whether it's good or bad, is also talking about the 5 album. I can't see that there's enough here to pass WP:NALBUM and justify this separate article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to 5 (Ed Sheeran album). I like album and EP articles, even weakly supported ones, if they provide more information than can be found in any one site elsewhere. In this case, the article is providing the musicians on the EP. If we just redirect, we would lose the musicians, unless that data is transferred over to the compilation album article, even if the other EP listings don't have the musicians. That could be seed information that would encourage further details to be listed for the other EPs in the collection. While I might be strict about notable albums being added to lists which are some of the largest articles in Wikipedia, I don't feel non-notable articles need to be deleted if they provide a valuable service. In this case, the EP collection album is the better choice where to list the album information, which is why in this case I support a re-direct. Mburrell (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge per comments listed below by Muhandes, and per some of the comments I had mentioned above when I was explaining what I wanted to see happen. Mburrell (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to 5 (Ed Sheeran album). In itself the EP does not seem to satisfy WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. There is however some notable details about the release of this EP which could be well represented in 5. --Muhandes (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Vote retracted in light of sources found. --Muhandes (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep: I found two biographies of Ed Sheeran that discuss the EP in more than sufficient depth. The ~~former~~ is probably better than the ~~latter~~ in terms of neutrality, but both are extensive and honestly better in terms of WP:SIGCOV than a lot of EPs get. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added these to the article now, as well as some other info (less for notability purposes than to corroborate a few details). This now clearly passes WP:NALBUM #1 and #5. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Now meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Gnomingstuff. They, including sugarscape, are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the participants seem divided over whether the article should be Kept, Merged or Redirected. Please consider sources that were recently located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the sources added to the article by Gnomingstuff. Article now passes WP:NALBUM. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Had a more thorough look at the new sources and personally I'm still unconvinced. Two of the three book sources really only mention the EP in passing and the third only has a few paragraphs about it. Those biographies do as much to make this EP feel like a not-so-notable footnote in Sheeran's career as the rest of the page. And I absolutely don't see an NALBUM #5 pass, surely because that TV Fanatic article only mentions one song on the EP in passing so it wouldn't meet SIGCOV, plus WP:INHERIT may apply (Maybe? Not entirely sure about that one). The BBC Suffolk article is primarily about No. 5 Collaborations Project and also only contains a passing mention of this EP. The rest of the sources I went over already, either passing mentions or non-reliable. If anything, I'm in support of the merge to 5 proposal. There's enough info in the article that deserves to be kept, I just don't think the article itself is there. QuietHere (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several paragraphs of background in a book-length biography of someone with a fairly long career is enough to pass WP:GNG. ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") The TV Fanatic article is one of the sources I mentioned is "less for notability purposes than to corroborate a few details" -- it is there to confirm the specific episode, since the other sources didn't mention the name. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well in that case we've still only got one source for notability. Isn't the general rule of thumb to have at least three? QuietHere (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The two books I linked here (the third is an autobiography so I'm not counting that for notability, it's there to confirm years) both have substantial enough coverage, I think -- background details, details on tracks, actually usable information, etc. -- certainly more than "in passing." Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

House My Style[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a single-market local television show, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient independent coverage to pass WP:TVSHOW. As always, every television show is not automatically entitled to keep a Wikipedia article in perpetuity just because it existed -- the notability test hinges on media coverage about the show, in sources other than itself, to establish that it has been externally validated as significant, but this is referenced principally to primary sources (YouTube videos, government reports, the self-published websites of organizations or companies directly affilated with the show, a how-to listicle on WikiHow) that are not support for notability at all.
The only two sources that come from real WP:GNG-worthy media are from local newspapers in the same market where the show aired, both are deadlinks, and only one was actually recoverable from ProQuest — thus raising the question of whether the unrecoverable source was even real in the first place, because it also purportedly came from a newspaper whose content is archived in ProQuest, and thus should have turned up there too if it really existed — but even the recoverable source turned out to just be a very short blurb, absolutely no other coverage from other sources turned up in ProQuest at all, and there's no prospect of more coverage in the future as this is a six-year-old show that only ran for 13 weeks and has never produced any further seasons.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced a hell of a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. There's a bit of coverage in the local press, but it all seems to be brief mentions, interviews with the producer, etc.—nothing that would qualify as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Actually, I missed seeing the withdrawal statement. Typically, they are put up closer to the nomination statement. But my oversight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Max Jenkins (cyclist)[edit]

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

BLP with only one working reference, which does not support the content of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Russia. Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I found this: The Backstory: Max Jenkins, pro cyclist. Anyone able to check Russian language sources? There might be more coverage out there. Silver seren^C 23:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get "Sorry, this content is not available in your region.". Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It works fine for me. Are you outside the US? Silver seren^C 12:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Afraid so. Rathfelder (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I was able to find a good number of sources after only a quick search, he received a good amount of coverage from around 2010-2013. Passes WP:NCYCLING and should have enough for WP:GNG also now. There are also definitely more sources still out there.Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to withdraw this. Thank you.Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- No problem. Glad I was able to help find sources and improve the article, thanks for bringing to attention. Seacactus 13 (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Keep per User:Seacactus 13's additions. This was a very strange relisting, considering the nominator had withdrawn. St Anselm (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I presume they're going with "any outstanding Delete votes" as the argument to relist it. But, yeah, it definitely could have had a closure done regardless. Silver seren^C 18:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Osler Library of the History of Medicine. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Osler Library Archival Collection[edit]

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

Article about an archival collection, not properly referenced as the subject of any coverage or analysis to establish its significance. In its current form, it's referenced exclusively to the host university's own self-published content about its own archival collections, rather than any outside coverage or analysis about the collection -- and prior to my having to undertake a significant cleanup job on it just now, there were also numerous footnotes to Wikidata queries, which is a circular violation as we cannot reference our own content to ourselves. And, furthermore, this would appear to have been created solely as a "finding aid" to help drive traffic to the archive's own website, because my cleanup job also included having to strip a couple of hundred (aaaarrrrggghhhh) embedded offsite links to the individual webpage of each individual fonds in the "contents of the collection" table.
There simply isn't any real claim being made or sourced here that this would have any standalone notability as a separate topic from Osler Library of the History of Medicine itself (which also needs sourcing improvement, but isn't nearly as problematic in tone or format.) Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to the library. This "article" is a few sentences and the classification system. We don't need what's basically the content of the card catalogue to be reproduced here. Oaktree b (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Delete Worth perhaps a mention in the article for the library (which is itself poorly sourced, unfortunately). But this is not encyclopedic. Lamona (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Osler Library of the History of Medicine per Oaktree. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forbes Haiti[edit]

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

The actual thing that this article is referring to is a non-notable WordPress blog^{[3][4][5][6] all of these links are clearly not RSes but share the detail of being founded on Sep 19} which appears completely unaffiliated from the real Forbes. The sources are some apparently irrelevant IMF report and two Forbes pages that just happen to be about Haiti, nothing related to this blog. eviolite (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, and Haiti. eviolite (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Not only is this not notable but there is no rational claim to significance. I believe that this is a candidate for speedy deletion and would have speedied it myself but thought that I should allow a short period for the author to demonstrate where notability lay. That period has elapsed and there is no notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not notable and without reliable sources. Agree with nomination--不和の林檎 (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete blog, likely a trademark infringement, possible copyvio. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - non-notable and unsourced; agree with nom. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 16:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, Unsourced , not notable, fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, Unsourced , not notable, fails. This user is creating uncontrolled pages for him and his businesses that do not meet Wikipedia's criteria. Please check its IP address with other already blocked usernames to get an idea. WP:GNG Accesswiki (talk) 7:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Per all above, Fails GNG & NMAG. Meets WP:A7 and maybe WP:A1. Bgv. (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Trust No One (Dave Navarro album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hungry (Dave Navarro song)[edit]

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

No indication of notability and lacks any sources. ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect ~~Keep~~- the song charted on a number of Billboard charts back upon its release as a single - Mainstream Rock, Alternative Rock, Heritage Rock, etc. I recall it getting airplay on the likes of MTV and VH1 back in the day too, so I image coverage exists out there somewhere, potentially locked away in paper copy sources. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revising to redirect. I'm surprised, but I couldn't find any coverage either. It's fine to redirect for now. If I ever find better sources I can try to recreate it then. But right now I can't even find any sources to write anything to flesh it out at all. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Couldn't find any specific coverage myself but Serge does make a good case for it existing (and speaking of MTV, I did find this brief mention from the time) and the charting should not be ignored. If anything, I'd support a redirect to the album before a straight deletion so what is on the article is easier to access and restore if someone else finds coverage later. QuietHere (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Had a look through MTV's archives via the Wayback Machine, didn't find anything more specific than that. Wanted to check VH1's but Wayback just went down and present-day VH1 doesn't have anything. Given the MTV bust I'm definitely leaning toward redirect to Trust No One now, but with the provision that if more coverage is located then I'd pretty easily switch to keep. QuietHere (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A look through VH1's archives didn't turn up any coverage either. QuietHere (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Trust No One. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows only a handful of passing mentions, no description about the song. Charting can be covered in the album's article and discography page. SBKSPP (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note to closer - they almost certainly meant Trust No One (Dave Navarro album). Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Star Mississippi 13:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prateek Chakravorty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

References are passing mentions, interviews and profiles for a BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Previously sent to deletion by sock. Following up to establish consensus. scope_creep^Talk 19:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Seems notable. His filmography includes popular movies/shows. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Does anybody have any comments on this? Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 23:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete Might be this fellow, brief mention [7], here also [8] and short interview/comment in the BBC [9]. Feel like there might be more in a local language? Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - the first link provided above doesn't seem to be about this Prateek, and my limited searches in Bengal and Tamil didn't find anything useful. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 09:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.

Solent Rescue[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) InvadingInvader (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Only one source, written like an advertisement, possible COI, potentially fails the GNG. The sole purpose of the article seems to promote a business; Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator article has been sufficiently improved and addressed its main concerns. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - The original creator of the article, User:Anthony Appleyard, is apparently deceased. As such, he will not be participating in this discussion. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment can probably rewrite it, a few sources for the various rescues they've done.Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. It’s hard to find sources because “Solent rescue” is a term used as a part of a description as well as to refer to this organization specifically. For example if someone is recused from the Solent many news articles will describe it as a Solent rescue, but the rescue in said source would not involve this group, leading to a false positive. That happened with a lot of sources. With that said, here are some sources I have found:

They recieved a Queen’s Award and got coverage for that[10][11] (These two cover the same Queen’s Award but I don’t know if one is more reliable than the other),
Here is another article from the Southern Daily Echo about a grant they received.
Here is an article about them and a new donated lifeboat
this document from the Solent Forum mentions them briefly
here is information about a grant they received from the government.
There is also this book which appears to go into some detail explaining the organization, but I can’t read beyond the snippet view so I can’t be sure how much detail it goes into.
According to this clipping they were featured on Channel 5, but I can’t find the video (and don’t even really know where to look) but they were featured there, presumably in detail as it was an hour long program

The pieces about the Queen's Award are absolutely significant coverage, and from what I can see of the book and what I can gather of the Channel 5 piece leads me to believe that they too are significant coverage of the article's subject. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject checks off all the criteria of WP:GNG. The pieces about the donation, the grant, and the Solent Forum document aren't what I'd call significant coverage, but I also wouldn't put them in the trivial coverage category, they're kind of in between in that there is detail to be gleaned from the references that can be used in the article, and because of that I do think that they contribute to the notability, especially when combined with the other sources that are significant. I am so very outside of my comfort zone with this topic in that I know absolutely nothing about it, but I suspect that someone who knows where they should be looking would be able to find even more sources, though I do think what I've posted above shows notability. I am very sorry this keep rationale got so long, but I wanted to fully explain myself as best as I could. So it seems to be a keep for what I can see. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Substantially enhanced since nominated for AfD to contain sources that verify the notability that was present previously, albeit unverified. The AfD has caused the enhancement by drawing it to the community's attention. Request the nominator considers withdrawing the nomination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The page has the minimum level of sources to pass GNG and remain here --不和の林檎 (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Socialisti.sk. History is under the redirect if someone wants to perform a merger. Star Mississippi 13:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eduard Chmelár[edit]

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

Never elected to any public office, English-language sources refer to him in passing only. Newklear007 (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Slovakia. Newklear007 (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unless someone finds a big old pile of non-English-language sources to support notability. GoldenRing (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Imagine openly admitting you didn't conduct a WP:BEFORE search. I can give a pass to the newer editor as they at least tried, but an experienced editor should know better. Curbon7 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what are you talking about, friend. I am arguing for deletion of this article precisely because the person covered by it fails the Wikipedia:Notability test as there is a "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Newklear007 (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't referring to you my friend, and in fact, I credit you with already having a good understanding of policy despite only having editing for a short period Curbon7 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. His Slovak page definitely looks better. There might be enough notability there if someone is prepared to seriously fix the English version. --Suitskvarts (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge The fact that "he participated in 1989 Velvet Revolution for Public Against Violence" doesn't make him notable. The only potentially notable fact is that he's the chairman of the Socialisti.sk movement. The party is on the Wikipedia page but I'm not sure if it qualifies. If no other sources found, I propose to merge his page with his party's page.--Onetimememorial (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option to, I'm guessing, Socialisti.sk. Please correct me if this is the wrong suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Searches reveal very little but I am prepared to believe that there may be Slovak sources out there but not within my competence to evaluate. The merge looks tempting at first glace, but that article is almost as weak as this one, and the party only came into existence in 2019. I suspect that it is all WP:TOOSOON. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Socialisti.sk. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 09:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 10:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kings and Generals[edit]

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

Probably does not meet WP:GNG. All sources are WP:FANDOM, WP:YOUTUBE or otherwise WP:SELFPUB. Most of the text is from Fandom.com, which publishes text under CC BY-SA 3.0, so there is probably no copyright infringement, but it's not a reliable source either. Although Kings and Generals itself most probably qualifies as a reliable source (and I have used it as such on occasion), it (unfortunately) is most likely not mentioned in enough other reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV) to be notable enough for its own article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, History, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, unless a lot of sources can be found and a lot of cleanup can be done. Peribirb (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly - this is a channel with almost 3M subscribers, and many of whose videos are viewed by hundreds of thousands of people - in what world doesn't it meet 'notability guidelines' more than, say, Raith Rovers F.C., which is followed by perhaps 10,000 people? (Mind you, I am not advocating removal of the Raith Rovers FC page, I am just amazed that any obscure football club / pub band of the '60s seems to be considered worthy of their page, whereas channels with million of viewers aren't) Poesio (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unspoken Keep vote in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. No reliable and independent coverage found. BilletsMauves^€500 10:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, I watch this channel quite a bit myself, but unfortunately I was not able to find any reliable secondary sources that covered it, meaning that it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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!} 02:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Galloway European[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT. Only secondary sources surround the purchase of the firm by a local business owner. The history of the organisation has been sourced directly from the firm website. A quick search online brings up no indication that this firm could be notable. I would have suggested merging it with the business owners other bus company however it seems the two firms are unrelated. 59abcd (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After launching this AfD see that another discussion led to a delete conclusion on 28 March 2011. 59abcd (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. 59abcd (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no reliable sources. --ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Considering that the last time this article came to AFD the decision was to Keep, I'm willing to relist a third time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Existing sourcing fails WP:NCORP. Searching for additional print newspaper sources in the British Newspaper Archive is a bit painful, since the company had tons of print ads in the '80s and '90s. I found a few discussions of service changes, but to my mind not sufficient (too routine). No apparent academic interest (JSTOR/Google Scholar) in the company. Suriname0 (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. There is a good faith disagreement as to whether the sourcing is sufficient to establish notability, and the debate here is roughly evenly divided. (In this I note that the nomination appeared to be procedural, and did not have an explicit argument for deletion, and that Randjithsiji opposed deletion although there was no bolded "keep".) The last keep vote is from a brand new account, but the sources provided have been considered nonetheless. The Mugilpete article is more about the movie, not this particular actor, and would probably not be considered as contributing to notability, but the Pathonpatham Noottandu source has more substantial content about the actor. Another NIE article [12] also covers the actress. I have been unable to find any discussion on the WP:RSP page regarding New India Express as a source, but in general established newspapers are considered valid sources. The case that the subject meets WP:GNG therefore appears to have merit to it, and without a consensus for deletion, I cannot delete in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kayadu Lohar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I procedurally speedy-closed the previous nomination of this article due to it being speedy-deleted mid-nomination while it was draftified (albeit the nomination was trending delete). Now the article was de-draftified but no prose was changed; only some references were added. Since I do not think G4 applies due to the speedy closure of the discussion, I am renominating this article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DareshMohan: Pinging you since you informed me of the article's recreation. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was not de-drafted. Insted the content of the previous article was copied to ugly draft. Most of the references and the infobox was added by me on the previously deleted article which was already notable according to WP:NACTOR. Now the article is notable with enough references. So give me a real reason to delete the content. Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to WP:NACTOR this article is notable and not to be deleted. Earlier SD was done by mistake and the person done that stated that also. I dont understand the nomination for another deletion. Strongly oppose for a deletion. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Beauty pageants, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Given that this actress has starred in three films (third one releasing on the 23th) and won a beauty paegent, she seems notable. The added references (including the interviews) seem notable. DareshMohan (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the creator's concern at WP:Requests for undeletion#Kayadu Lohar regarding the previous deleted version, I was about to make a case of attribution, or undeletion to address the concern, when I noticed that the article has been recreated. Ranjithsiji, if you were not in agreement with the draft suggestion at the RfU, you should have said so there, or gone to WP:Deletion review against the deletion of your revision by Ged UK. The RfU request is still not closed. I see this as a bad faith recreation of the article. Regardless of whether this article is deleted or not, the corresponding draft Draft:Kayadu Lohar should contain attribution for copied content. Kailash29792 copied content to the draft with edit summary Copied from mainspace article, soon to be deleted, but did not provide a revision ID nor contributor name credits from namespace (one of the concerns per the RfU). Finally, Mellohi! I could not find a deletion rationale in this nomintation. The current revision is not the one for which we had AfD 1. After AfD1, this was again deleted as an (incorrect) G4. If notability is the concern, you may want to reword the nomination, otherwise I would suggest a procedural close. Jay 💬 09:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the RfU discussion it was clear that the draft will prevail and will not proceed to an undeletion. And there is a clear copyright violation according to a CC-BY-SA-4.0 in the draft. Also SD was done without reading the talk page of the article. That means all this was a mess. A lot of carelessness from multiple people. This was not expected in a wiki like this. That is why I recreated the article. And I expect a clear reason to delete this article again. Ranjithsiji (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to mention that the undeletion request was archived at WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 378#Kayadu Lohar without further updates. Jay 💬 13:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete most of the sources are simply cast announcements. This [13] is about the best one; the Indian Express is a RS, this edition was split off after the owner died, so unsure how notable the New Indian Express is. Oaktree b (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deccan Herald, Times of India, The New indian Express says Mugilpete was released on 19th September 2021 and Kayadu was the Heroin. The Hindu, Mathrubhumi, Manorama Online, News18 says Pathonpatham Noottandu was released on 8th September 2022 and Kayadu was one of the lead actor in the film. All the links are posted after the release dates. I don't understand how the reviews are cast announcements. We can debate the notability of The Hindu, Deccan Herald, Times of India, Manorama online, Mathrubhumi. In my opinion they are leading news papers. according to WP:NACTOR this article is notable and I strongly oppose the deletion. Ranjithsiji (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. We lack multiple sources with in depth significant coverage. Further, without reviews with significant coverage of her work in the films she has been in, it's not clear she passes any of the subject criteria at WP:NACTRESS. We need more than a cast announcement or a passing mention in the cast list of a review to demonstrate that the parts she has played are significant under that guideline. The evidence just isn't there.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I share the concerns regarding the criteria of WP:ENT. Additionally, the references in the article and information I can find online are predominately trivial mentions, so there's WP:SIGCOV issues as well. Uhai (talk · contribs) 03:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR as per the sufficient condition that they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films". The more-than-one notable films are Pathonpatham Noottandu and Mugilpete. The subject of the article has had a significant role in Pathonpatham Noottandu (The New Indian Express: "in his upcoming epic Pathonpathaam Noottaandu (19th Century), director Vinayan has announced the female lead, Kayadu Lohar,") and Mugilpete (The New Indian Express: "The story revolves around the couple Raja (Manuranjan Ravichandran) and Apoorva (Kayadu Lohar).") The New Indian Express is a part of established Indian media and seems unlikely to get such basic facts wrong. VideoGamer1337 (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: this editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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!} 02:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radicals of the Left[edit]

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

A party that certainly does not meet WP:GNG and that is practically not mentioned in any source, except in three or four unknown websites. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. A party or a political organisation can be encyclopedic even if it does not participate in elections. This subject is clearly worth of an article in en.Wikipedia as it is in fr.Wikipedia. The party's six years of history can and should be tracked. Luckily, several sources are available on the web. This said, if regrettably there is no consensus on keeping the article, I hope we can at least merge it into Italian Radicals. --Checco (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Checco if you make statements, also have the kindness to demonstrate them. What are the sources on this party? The fact of existing has nothing to do with encyclopedic relevance.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Checking Google Books, I find several reliable sources for the political party "Radicals of the Left", but all of them deal with a political party in France, and a cadet branch of that party in Portugal. I find nothing about an Italian political party by that name other than Wikipedia mirrors. There is already a separate article on the French party, Radical Party of the Left. Banks Irk (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: @Checco I wouldn't want to be repetitive, but could you indicate the sources "available on the web" through which the "party's six years of history can (...) be tracked"? Certain statements need to be proven... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Checco I renew the invitation here too: if the sources on this party can be found on the web, could you show some of them? I didn't find them, therefore I would appreciate your reply...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that your reasoning is too conditioned by a recentist view. Do you think that it would be easy to find sources on the web on several current minor parties, like Volt Italy, ten or twenty years from now? More in-depth researches need to be made. There is no doubt that this party existed. There are also some sources on the web and you can easily find them. Just two examples among many others: [14] and [15]. --Checco (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are just two sources and from local newspaper articles... Before proposing this party for deletion, I did a search of the sources. Indeed, it is not important only that the party effectively existed, but that it had good source coverage. After all, I have found sources about some tiny parties that existed 25/30 years ago.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both of the articles cited by [User:Checco] appear to be reprints of press releases from the party itself, announcing the open and close of the party convention, respectively. Those references are insufficient to establish notability, so they don't change my assessment. If more sources can be found, that might sway me. Banks Irk (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Checking Italian newspapers I find the phrase "radicali di sinistra" but used almost exclusively in articles about the USA; none of them refer to an actual party in Italy. The articles listed by [User:Checco] report on a meeting held by the group but there is not enough about the group to achieve notability, and the articles were in sources that are limited in their geographic coverage. Lamona (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Sims 3. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stuff packs for The Sims 3[edit]

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Per the policy, "Wikipedia treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the [...] significance, and influence of works". There is no indication of significance/influence for a group of minor expansion packs of furniture and clothing, etc. for a game. It can be succinctly described in the parent article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - After an extensive search, I found shockingly little sources covering Sims 3's stuff packs. The most I found in terms of reviews is Common Sense Media reviewed every one except Sweet Treats and Diesel, and IGN reviewed the first pack, Loft Stuff. Here's what I found:

High-End Loft Stuff/Design and Hi-Tech Stuff: IGN review, Common Sense Media review

Fast Lane Stuff: Common Sense Media review, brief coverage in Destructoid, news coverage by Softpedia, brief coverage by Rock Paper Shotgun

Outdoor Living Stuff: Common Sense Media review, review in The Irish Times

Town Life Stuff: Common Sense Media review, news coverage by Softpedia

Master Suite Stuff: Common Sense Media review, Eurogamer Italy review, brief coverage by Digital Spy

Katy Perry's Sweet Treats: Was unable to find any reviews, but got a decent amount of news coverage: Gamezone, MTV, VG247, Digital Spy

Diesel Stuff: Literally nothing

70s, 80s, & 90s Stuff Common Sense Media review, very brief mention of pack announcement in Engadget

Movie Stuff: Common Sense Media review

Waxworker (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge/Redirect to The Sims 3. The coverage here isn't enough to meet the WP:GNG, but there's some mentions here worth incorporating into the main article. (Common Sense media isn't a reliable source, and not even sure they provide actual game reviews, other than being a parental watchdog.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shooterwalker: Common Sense Media is a reliable source per WP:CSM, and does have reviews by staff, per the reviews linked. Waxworker (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's news to me, and I'll keep that in mind. Even on that front, some of these CSM "reviews" are not much more than a paragraph, in the context of CSM's game profiles that are focused more on their advocacy/advisory. Not significant by WP:GNG standards but perhaps worth preserving at the merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge or redirect to The Sims 3 - Not seeing evidence that this is independently notable from a WP:PAGEDECIDE perspective, and the relevant section of The Sims 3 article probably needs more prose. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 21:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

F.C. PRO Romania[edit]

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

Club that plays Sunday league football in the Sceptre Sunday League, which is way, way below the level that would bring a presumption of notability. I can't find anything about this club aside from their own Facebook page and YouTube channel. Looks to be a comprehensive failure of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Romania, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a new team representing 1 million Romanians who live and work in the UK. The other team that we had called FC Romania progressed in 15 years form Sunday league to Isthmian league. The British bought the brand and the league position so we have got left with only this team now : FC Pro Romania.If you want to delete a page delete the FC Romania team which doesn’t represent the name it bears. It is one of the thousands of insignificant English teams owned by British at low level 7-8 .The captain and goalkeeper moved here now all the team players are Romanian. I say here because I live in Basildon. Please let this team to develop and I promise in 10-15 years they will get back to Isthmian or Southern League. Level 7-8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximliviu7 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is your evidence that the club will be notable in 10-15 years' time? Do you have a WP:CRYSTALBALL? Would it not make more sense to create the article after the club gains significant coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any references - let alone borderline ones. Nfitz (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I could find no sources to indicate notability. Sorry article creator, you need independent sources to do news coverage on your team if you want to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete , No sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. In 10-15 years time if they are more successful then, like the creator suggests, then the article can be re-created. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - not notable at all. Try again in 10-15 years -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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!} 21:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poker Bunny[edit]

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

Reviewed through NPP. Not seeing enough sourcing to pass WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. The article is currently sourced to two podcast interviews and I didn't find anything better through WP:BEFORE, only passing mentions and unreliable sources. Spicy (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am the creator of the page and have no input concerning its deletion or retention. Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources, perhaps it's too soon for an article Mujinga (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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!} 21:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eleanor Legge-Bourke[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Jay D. Easy (t) 19:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jay D. Easy (t) 19:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Almost no sources whatsoever seem to exist; the only ones I could find were tabloid mentions that are thin even by tabloid standards. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify.. Maybe someone can ask User:Infowriter's Keyboard to stop moving this draft to main space (which he has done twice). It's now at Draft:BoyWithUke. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BoyWithUke (Musical Artist)[edit]

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

Repeatedly contested draftspace moves. There is no evidence that this individual is independently notable from the already seemingly connected violinist Charles Yang, which a contributor for The Philadelphia Inquirer has already seemed to make the connection (subscription required). Jalen Folf (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked him up on Spotify and his most streamed song has over 400 million plays. So if notability is the argument, I'd vote to keep. But the article is in incredibly poor shape, so I would suggest draftifying. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, the article gets moved out of Draft space so I'm not sure how long it would remain a draft. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I don't think we recognize tiktok famous as notable here yet. Otherwise I don't see much we can use for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about the Billboard articles and chart listings? If you search him up, he's in here and here (both recommended national WP:CHARTS, which meet the second WP:SINGER criterion) and he's been on multiple Billboard charts and articles. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 05:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural Comment - This article's clunky title appears to be a way to get around another namespace. There was previously an article called simply BoyWithUke, which has a flip-flopping history ([16]) and as of today is redirecting to the classical musician Charles Yang, apparently because he likes to make anonymous music under that handle. But is it the same guy? According to the article nominated here, this BoyWithUke was born in 2002, but Charles Yang was born in 1988. That might be misinformation. If they are the same guy, just Redirect this article to Charles Yang. If this BoyWithUke is someone different, he has been mentioned briefly in Billboard and Rolling Stone, but largely as a collaborator and not so much in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That redirect to Charles Yang has since been changed. Hopefully nobody will change it back. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment BoyWithUke was previously a redirect to Blackbear discography because Blackbear was featured on his single "IDGAF". I highly doubt that Charles Yang is BoyWithUke. Besides the obvious age difference, if you read the Philadelphia Inquirer article, the author cites Wikipedia as their source for the claim and Yang straight-up denies it in the following sentence. The information that says this in Yang's article was already deleted last month after a discussion on the talk page.

The sentence from the Inquirer the nom cites: "According to his Wikipedia bio, Yang has a secret alternate identity, known as “BoyWithUke,” whose music has the verbal density of hip-hop but with a folksy ukulele accompaniment (Yang swears he knows nothing about this performer)."

(I don't have a subscription, I just did the old "click X before the paywall loads up" trick) — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 05:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think this Billboard column is significant and shows that this 19 year old is a different person than the 34 year old Yang. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draftify I was working on this article (EDIT: I was the sole contributor of the draft besides another guy who worked on it before the draft was speedily deleted for promotion. I asked the admin who deleted it to restore it and deleted most of the content aside from the infobox and discography) before somebody else moved it to mainspace. I believe he is notable as he has shown up on several national chart listings e.g. BPI. However, it isn't ready for publication (those half-finished sentences and bare URLs I was saving for possible references were mine), and I have no idea why it was moved prematurely or who moved it.

As for whether Yang is BoyWithUke, the Philadelphia Inquirer article cites Wikipedia for the claim. In the article, Yang himself denied any connection with this artist. The information was likely misinformation (for example, the obvious age difference) and was already deleted from Yang's article for months after a talk page discussion. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 04:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, see my two other comments. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 05:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draftify - I'm not a fan of draftifying an article that already has a contentious history, nor because the subject might be more notable someday. But this time is might be the best solution. Clean it up there, find more evidence that the musician is notable, and don't bring it back to mainspace until it's ready. In fact, perhaps tougher protection is necessary to prevent yet another unmerited jump to mainspace. Also, fix that older redirect that is currently going to Blackbear Discography, which is likely to conflict with the present "...(Musical Artist)" version in the near future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 18:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Devon Walden[edit]

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

Pretty obvious press release sources and refbomb case. Going by this revision: ref 6 has a disclaimer in the end. Ref 11 is marked as "Sponsored: Advertising Content". Refs 11 and 12 are clearly marked as a press release. Refs 2, 4, 5, 7 and 13 are an exact copy of Ref 14, which is written in a clearly promotional way. Ref 8 is a random YT video. Refs 3 and 9 are from his own website. This leaves us only with Refs 1 and 10. 1 is just repeating the subject, while 10 is nothing but puffery. Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable spam. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United States of America, and Indiana. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Non RS used to create the article, I don't find any otherwise either. Source analysis above shows the poor quality of the sources used. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the author for this. MER-C 11:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. There are no legitimate sources or outside verification or even hint of notability. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as promotional. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete nothing in terms of RS. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 20:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fuerte Hotels[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; all sources are just passing mentions or not independent Dark Juliorik (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dark Juliorik (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG. I might expect a hotel chain of this size to pass GNG but as per nom, I can only really find passing mentions. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 19:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - per SIGCOV. Passing mentions are not enough to establish notability. Haueirlan (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Real McKenzies#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pissed Tae Th' Gills[edit]

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

Unsourced for nearly a decade and I couldn't find anything. That Internet Archive only has one result seems especially telling. Redirect to The_Real_McKenzies#Discography.

And while I'm here, does anyone know if the title is capitalised correctly? It is my understanding that "Tae Th'" is equivalent to "to the", and that would definitely be lowercase per MOS:TITLECAPS, but does the same apply here? Not that it'd matter if this gets wiped but it'd useful to know in general. QuietHere (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to The_Real_McKenzies#Discography. Album on it's own is not notable as per WP:MUS. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 19:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I think Wikipedia's guidelines for what albums are or are not notable is needlessly narrow and foolish. If the stated goal of this project is to be a collection of the worlds knowledge, then removal is counterproductive. It is an actual album by a notable band. Keeping it does not harm Wikipedia, and removing it would not improve Wikipedia. Therefore, I say let it stay. Natt the Hatt (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First off, per WP:NMUSIC: "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." Your "actual album by a notable band" doesn't really matter here, especially given the sources on the Real McKenzies page are surprisingly very weak and the band themself might not actually be notable.

Secondly, notability has been a core tenet of Wikipedia for a very long time and those rules have remained agreed upon since at least 2007. If you disagree with them, that's fine, it's just that 1. This is not the place to bring that up and 2. You're probably not gonna get very far arguing against them.

And lastly, the problem with your "collection of the world's knowledge" logic is that if information is unsourced then we can't reasonably prove this "knowledge" to be true. WP:VERIFY is another core policy, and if we can't provide that for readers then we're failing the site's purpose at its most essential. Information in that article could be entirely made up for all I know because there's no material covering it to confirm those claims. Not that the article is making any seriously valuable claims, though the fact that it's sharing nothing more than a track list and release date, information found just as easily on sites like Discogs and Rate Your Music, is also a point against it since we're not really providing more than basic facts.

Empty calorie articles like these don't teach anyone anything that useful, and leave too much room for editors, even mistakenly/in good faith, to mislead readers by adding misinformation. I believe that is harmful to WP and its mission, and the site is better off without this kind of material, hence the rules being strictly opposed to it. QuietHere (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This entire stance violates WP:NOTINHERITED. And it does not matter if you approve of Wikipedia standards for notability. When you're on Wikipedia, that's what applies. It's WP:NOTAVOTE, you've got to give a valid argument on your stance. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need sources or we have no way to prove this isn't made up. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect - to band discography. Unsourced and almost devoid of content, and not particularly likely to change, as live albums often struggle to get coverage unless they're a pretty popular artist. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to The Real McKenzies#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 20:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mayur Public School[edit]

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

Not passing WP:NSCHOOL. RPSkokie (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. RPSkokie (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The page has the minimum level of sources to pass GNG and remain on wikipedia --Bigneeerman (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails GNG & NSCHOOL. Article itself appears to fall under WP:DYNAMITE IMHO. Bgv. (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 00:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nelinho (Mozambican footballer)[edit]

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

Article about former international footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. PROD contested without supplying evidence of WP:SIRS on the subject. I'd like to believe a Mozambican footballer with an extensive career at international level would pass the GNG, but I'm finding nothing to back that belief. Jogurney (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Agree that sources should be out there for somebody like this. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 14:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment a good example of WP:BIAS in play. With 33 national team caps, we wouldn't have have any problems providing references for a first-world nation who speaks English. But here we have a non-white, very poor, nation, and a player from the turn-of-the-century - with few if any online sources available from that period. This is an issue we need to address, rather than ignoring common sense. Nfitz (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs such as a bias against covering African sportspeople, the simple fact of the matter is that no sources can be found that would cause a GNG pass. A search under "Nasser Carimo futebolista moçambicano" did bring up several passing mentions in relation to his time as assistant manager of the Mozambique national team, but the most extensive coverage I could find was this in O Pais, which has only a paragraph actually on him and is such probably not SIGCOV, with everything else being very brief passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom Andre🚐 16:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per analysis by DW. Passing mentions do not add up to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yedinson Palacios[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who was a reserve for a few clubs in the Colombian top division, but fails WP:SPORTBASIC. I can only find online English- and Spanish-language coverage that is routine or trivial such as match reports, transfer announcements and statistical database entries. Jogurney (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, Is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Reasonable claims of SIGCOV have been put forward and not refuted. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hypnoscope[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no real assertion of notability. Mike1901 (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources touching upon the subject. Some medical tools for diagnostics may be obsolete, but people used them, and those tools take certain place in history of technological progress. The same article appeared in German Wikipedia 17 years ago

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypnoskop&action=history ForTheHellOfIt (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't easily evaluate the listed sources, but "touching upon the subject" isn't typically enough. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." ~T P W 17:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, there is encyclopedia of physiology, written with participation of Charles Richet, which main topic is not a hypnoscope, but there is a whole chapter dedicated to the subject https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6364925r/f758.item#

As we can see, there were different types of hypnoscopes, made by Gessman, by Ochorowicz and by Gustav Wilhelm Geßmann, maybe even more. Those devices were mentioned by different scientists, and there is a spectre of sources written in English, French, German, Polish and Russian languages.

There are plenty of sources, they are reliable and they prove that the implement existed and took part in medicine back in XIXth century. ForTheHellOfIt (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG per the significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ "The Hypnoscope". Scientific American Supplement. Vol. 19. Munn and Company. 1885. p. 7556.
^ Mathias Roth (1887). The Physiological Effects of Artificial Sleep. Bailliere, Tindall & Cox. p. 34.
^ "The Hypnoscope". Cassell's Family Magazine. 1885. p. 383.
^ American Society for Psychical Research (1889). Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research. Vol. 1. Rand, Avery & Company. p. 119.
^ Fredrik Johan Björnström; Nils Posse (1889). Hypnotism; Its History and Present Development. Humboldt Publishing Company. p. 13. ISBN 9780598387998.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. A Newspapers.com search for "hypnoscope" in pre-1925 newspapers yielded 230 hits. A cursory glance indicates that at least several of these are in-depth discussions of the subject, such as this 1885 article in the Sacramento Bee. BD2412 T 02:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. WP:SNOW. Notability is amply demonstrated. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Russian mobilization[edit]

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

I am unsure this deserves a stand-alone article. It is one mobilization order, that seems to me to be all a bit forkey. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. In addition to the decree, we have the widest public outcry, protests with detentions, Statement of Putin and not only him, mentions of all the media: from small regional ones in Russia to world-class ones like AP^[1], Reuters^[2], DW^[3] and so on. It's like removing an article about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. PLATEL (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Front page news on CNN, BBC and elsewhere, prompted protests, massive one-way ticket buyouts and queues on Russian-Georgian border to escape the mobilization. The first such step in Russia since World War II. Meets WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Brandmeister^talk 13:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep first time mobilization has been implemented in post-Soviet Russia, clearly notable. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep First Russian mobilization in like 80 years, first in modern russian history, and also huge turning point in the war. CR-1-AB (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep: Fails WP:CFORK. 213.233.108.79 (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep: Incredibly significant event on its own right. --Pithon314 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I simply can't believe that anyone would consider this article not worthy as an article on Wikipedia. The mobilisation by Putin has a similiar significance like "The Emser Depesche" in 1870: it simply changed history. --Chris.w.braun (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep This idea is absolutely horrible. The mobilisation is noted in many sources. 64.82.204.2 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close AfD. Super Ψ Dro 16:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep of course. If you call it a "fork", then it is a necessary fork. I'm more of a reader than editor of Wikipedia, and I can tell that I actually avoid reading these long and too detailed articles on Ukraine conflict. Specific subtopics deserve separate articles to avoid a mess.Knižnik (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep About the event is written in the most reliable world media, the event of really world importance.--Dark Juliorik (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep per reasons above, this is clearly notable even now, two days after it has started. Unspectrogram (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Putin's ongoing call-up is the third ever mobilization effort, after WW1 and WW2, in the history of one of the most populous countries in the world. Putting its possible ramifications and consequences aside, it is already a major historical event both locally and internationally. --Kober^Talk 18:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The mobilisation will definitely alter the course of history, and could see a drastic change to the ongoing war. --Ricky250 (Talk) 18:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - per above. A clearly notable event within the wider conflict that has already received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and no doubt will continue to do so. WJ94 (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 14:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benedicte Find[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. The article has only two sources. One is a list of company shareholders for Coloplast, so a primary source and not significant coverage. The second is this profile on Forbes which is a very brief overview of Find and not, in opinion, significant coverage. After looking through Google & Google News, the only other source I could find is this page, where Find is listed as one of 50 pandemic billionaires, but only the barest of details are given. At the very best, there is one reliable source with significant coverage (although, as I said, I'd dispute the significance of the coverage), so this fails GNG. WJ94 (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Architecture. WJ94 (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Article is a one-sentence long stub that does not establsh why she is a notable billionare.TH1980 (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tryola Nadia[edit]

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

Fails N:BAD, WP:V. Stvbastian (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability.--Dark Juliorik (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaning delete Tried a quick GNews search and I have not come up with sigcov (i.e. not just "Nadia played this match") on the first two pages of results. Yet another Lugnuts-style article that could use some TNT. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion WP:CSD#A10, while noting an early tend toward a snowball delete. This article is unsourced, so I don't see anything to be merged from here to 2022 Russian mobilization, nor does this appear to be a useful search term. —C.Fred (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putin announced partial mobilization in Russia[edit]

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

Not important enough for a stand-alone article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary duplicate of 2022 Russian mobilization; no need to keep it as a redirect. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 13:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Although it has been turned into a redirect to 2022 Russian mobilization by the page creator, Dickonlandia. Should that be reverted for now or this moved to WP:RfD? Skynxnex (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete. Delete, for the reasons given above. This is not a plausible search term, so a redirect is inappropriate, and there is nothing in the original article (before it was blanked and then redirected) which could be incorporated into 2022 Russian mobilization. I actually think this meets the criteria for CSD A10 as a recently created article which duplicates an existing topic with no relevant page history and which in neither a plausible redirect not expands/improves upon the existing article. WJ94 (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete with merge into 2022 Russian mobilization. —Michael Z. 19:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete That other article had to be nominated for deletion as well. Azuredivay (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matt Conable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete per ANYBIO and GNG. Not notable, no RS Dark Juliorik (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google search found no evidence of notability, just one-sentence mentions of the subject. The only lengthy piece was publicity written up on PR Web, which typically is posted by the subject. A search for awards came up empty. The subject appears to be a somewhat successful but non-notable business person. No WP:SIGCOV and the article coverage does not show that WP:BIO is met. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete agree with above. PR pieces and brief mentions, routine business person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Sandstein 09:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Service List Registry[edit]

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

Delete per NCORP. Not notable organization Dark Juliorik (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Service List Registry aims to provide an international registry of audiovisual services as per the open DVB-I standard. As referenced in the article, the Service List Registry has been covered in some detail by several leading industry publications: Broadband TV News, Advanced Television, informitv, and Cable & Satellite International, all of which provide daily coverage of developments in the field and are indexed by Google News. Tellytext (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Service List Registry is indeed a notable organisation in Wikipedia terms and appropriate for an article.

The Service List Registry implements the international standard ETSI TS 103 770 and aims to provide a central service registry for audiovisual services. This is a key part of an initiative led by the DVB Project, an international membership organisation based in Geneva that has developed and implemented specifications that are used by broadcasters worldwide, including the DVB-I standard on which the Service List Registry is based.

Pilot DVB-I services are currently being trialed by broadcasters in Germany and Italy.

As referenced in the article, the Service List Registry has been covered in some detail by several leading industry publications: Broadband TV News, Advanced Television, informitv, and Cable & Satellite International, all of which provide daily coverage of developments in the field and are indexed by Google News.

The Service List Registry is currently being demonstrated at the IBC Show in Amsterdam, an annual international industry convention which is attended by around 50,000 people from around the world. Tellytext (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete article is written from primary sources, all I find are press releases. Nothing notable found, not GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Added further background and references. This article covers the inception and development of a significant initiative that has been reported in recent years through extensive articles in specialist media that are widely read within the industry, including the journal of the DVB, an industry-led consortium of broadcasters, manufacturers, network operators, software developers, regulators and others from around the world. This article provides a valid and valuable contribution to Wikipedia.Tellytext (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tellytext Please do not leave more than one bolded !vote in a deletion discussion. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov.[edit]

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

There are 3 undescribed species of Aplocheilichthys in IUCN red list. But none of them matches the description. And all of them have their informal names.

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha' and Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Baringo' are distributed in Kenya. And both of them has their own article. (Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Baringo' Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha')

Rovuma Topminnow Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Rovuma' is distribued in Tanzania, Mozambique and Malawi.

I think it should be deleted and create a new article Rovuma Topminnow. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 09:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 09:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I've noticed that a lot of Aplocheilichthys species have been placed elsewhere. I think it should be checked if these 3 species have been published in other genera. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 09:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete and delete the other two species stubs as well. As noted by OP, the genus is currently considered monotypic (Fishbase). If any of these three made it to described status in that genus before it got reduced from 89 to 1, it is not discernable from the common names (you will have to search for genus Aplocheilichthys on Fishbase, the results page can't be hardlinked). I would say it is very unlikely that these three candidates, of all species practically or theoretically assigned to the genus, turn out to share it with Aplocheilichthys spilauchen. Hence no unique identification exists - these are unknown species for which we have only an outdated and almost certainly inapplicable genus assignment. No basis for articles. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me but what(or who) is OP? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 13:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry - original poster. Short for person who started the discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I see. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 02:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: a mention in this 2021 article [17] suggests that 'Baringo' still hadn't been described or reassigned last year, although possiby these guys just didn't search beyond IUCN either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete per Wikipedia is not Science News. We already have rather too much trouble chasing around people pruning and grafting the taxonomic tree; having something where the article is "well, here we have this critter, it might be in this genus, but really, we're still working it all out" is not what we should be writing. We can wait until they do figure things out, at least on some semi-permanent basis. Mangoe (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It seems that IUCN no longer maintains a record for this fish. I assume that means that IUCN no longer considers it to warrant recognition as an (undescribed) species (the alternative is that is has been described as a species, but with the IUCN record no longer working, it's pretty much impossible to determine what species it is). WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is predicated on species having been described. While there are a few undescribed species that may be worthy of having an article, I think all of the bot-created stubs on undescribed species based on IUCN records should be deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fuyu Iwasaki[edit]

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

Failed N:BAD, WP:V. Stvbastian (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails to meet NBAD for now, may meet in the future. Haueirlan (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aura Ihza Aulia[edit]

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

Too early for Indonesia badminton players article. Rank 504, no sources, fails WP:V Stvbastian (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:NBADMINTON. --Assirian cat (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki-Solar[edit]

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

Cannot find significant coverage meeting WP:NCORP for this commercial dataset. Most of the links in the article seem to be permanent dead links, but the ones that I could access are promotional, unreliable or just have passing mention. Same for Google search. Was prodded in 2012. Also promotional and in TNT territory, given it's mostly based on information from their own website. Femke (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Femke (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why this entry should not be deleted
Wiki-Solar is the most comprehensive source on utility-scale solar worldwide.
It is referenced in several Wikipedia pages including Photovoltaic power station.
I will try to replace the bad links on the page soon.--RaAmun (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @RaAmun: Thanks for trying to improve the article! The most helpful thing to do is listing the WP:THREE best sources that talk about the topic in some depth, are reliable and are independent of the topic (see these criteria). Afterwards, you may want to remove fluff from the article (like the annual data section, which does not provide much information about Wiki-solar and is sourced almost exclusively to their own website. Femke (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question Do we have to vote now or could this be held for a couple of weeks to give RaAmun a chance to show it is notable? Which I doubt they will be able to do - sorry - (compare say Global Energy Monitor which has so much press) but should have a chance. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a vote.
This discussion typically lasts c. 1 week but can be relisted (i.e. extended) if there's little discussion of substance. I'll give a shot looking into it today, but the sources in the article don't appear to meet WP:NCORP on my first run through.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK yes it would be better if others commented to get a wider range of opinion - but if you want me to comment further let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: the article was created by an account called WikiSolar (talk · contribs), so possible COI originally. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Read through the article and have some rough thoughts. Mostly citations from itself, and non-self citations are just citing Wiki-Solar. The three citations after "used by many industry authorities" (Bosmans, Louwen, and Kumar) only reference Wiki-Solar without giving information on it. I think this is WP:OR, and they are not adding to the sigcov part of GNG. Another OR part is with Cheyney, saying that it "avoids the issue", referencing said issue, and connecting to Wiki-Solar's decision separately. Solar Zerp and Agarwal et al. also merely reference it. OR again. In general it's a no-go. SWinxy (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karthik (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. PravinGanechari (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The movie got coverage [1], [2]. Since it's a Kannada-language movie so I am not sure we will find alot of coverage about it in English. Fifthapril (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Addressing the keep vote- coverage does not denote notability. In this case, the first ref provided by Fifthapril is a one paragraph routine coverage from a situationally reliable source per WP:RSP, not meeting the requirement of being a reliable, independent, significant source. Further, the second ref is evidently a press release or routine coverage, it even states "[addressing] the presspersons", so this is not a critical commentary or review, evidently failing the significant requirement. Same with the article's ref, another very short press release purely covering the cast and plot. This leaves us with one review from a possibly unreliable ref (which somehow couldn't be opened on my laptop). The other refs in the article are probably unreliable. Thus, WP:NFILM is failed. Regarding WP:GNG, [moreover], not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources definitely applies here- all of these refs excepting for the review are press releases/announcement columns. As my WP:BEFORE search reveals no more refs, I strongly oppose the keep vote. VickKiang 23:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Seems to be not notable and without any reliable sources or reviews. Agree with nom--Dark Juliorik (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The claim of extensive sources existing is not supported by the mention of any of these sources so I think those advocating Deletion have the stronger argument here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Communist Platform (Italy)[edit]

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

A very small extra-parliamentary party mentioned at most in a few third-party sources and whose political activity is practically unknown. It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. One of the several factions/parties emerged within/from the Communist Refoundation Party, this subject clearly deserves an article. The group has been active for about 15 years and has more than 6,000 hits in Google. Deleting this article would be a very bad precedent. This said, if regrettably there is no consensus on keeping the article, I hope we can at least merge it into Communist Refoundation Party. --Checco (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Checco your motivation is not valid, for the umpteenth time you repeat that Google Hits does not prove anything. This party has absolutely no 6,000 references.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment @Checco I invite you once again to correct at least your opinion, which cannot be considered valid. How can you just think this micro-group has 6000 hits?? How can you not know that the term "piattaforma comunista" can be used in 1000 different contexts? And, in any case, Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Numerical facts) Could you tell me which of the WP:GNG principles (necessary to have a standalone article in wikipedia) this group meets? in my opinion not even one... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also in this case, among all the sources on the web, the only mention in a fairly authoritative source is the book "La diaspora del comunismo italiano". It is quite clear that two words as common as "piattaforma" and "comunista" easily generate 6000 hits on Google (assuming that the only number of hits on Google has value in an Afd).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. This group fails WP:NGO as the scope of its activities is quite limited and it doesn't appear to get WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. A redirect to the group that it splintered from is not reasonable given that the group is not mentioned whatsoever in the Communist Refoundation Party article, so I prefer deletion outright in this case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Red-tailed hawk: The faction, later party, is not mentioned in the article on the PRC because all the factions and breakaway groups of that party have an article in Wikipedia. This should not be an exception. There are thousands of sources on it on the web (not just piattaforma + comunista, but for "piattaforma comunista") and, if it is not kept as a separate article, it should become a redirect to the PRC article. --Checco (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Checco: Can you provide three such sources? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Hawk, if there are thousands of sources on it on the web then it should be less work to add three good sources to the article than its been for you to comment here. In my searching I'm having a hard time differentiating between "communist platform"/"piattaforma comunista" in the generic and the specific. All communist parties have a platform after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete From my reading, this is not the name of a political party. Their own web page reads: "Piattaforma Comunista - per il Partito Comunista del Proletariato d’Italia (PC-PCPI)" - which tells me that this is indeed the platform or the voice of the PCPI. I note that there is not an entry in the IT wikipedia under either moniker, and I do not find sources (other than their own web site) under either name. Lamona (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep it is a member of an international organization Braganza (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - According to this source, Piattaforma Comunista is not a party, but a platform whose main task is "the theoretical and political struggle for the formation (making), in our country, of a strong communist party". It is therefore wrong to classify it as a political party. I can't find reliable secondary sources about this platform: Google searches provide only declaration form other communist parties or the platform itself , blogs entries, self-published materials and few passing references in regional or local newspapers (mainly linked to local strikes). I found in Google Books an excerpt of the book "La diaspora del comunismo italiano" (pages 80-81), but it just reports word by word some sentences from the platform's program, which can be found in the platform's website, so I'm not sure if it can be classified as a valid secondary source. P1221 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, a search brought up no sources that would lead to a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KB INDELA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:ORGCRIT-compliant sourcing found.

The source in the article (since moved to https://www.suasnews.com/2010/09/russian-unmanned-helicopter-cuts-a-dash/) fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it only contains a short paragraph actually about the company.
The first source found by Crystalizedcarbon in the previous AFD is dead and not archived.
The second source found by Crystalizedcarbon in the previous AFD also seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH from what I can make out on Google Translate as it contains very little content actually about the company as opposed to a review of its products, although it arguably provides significant coverage of INDELA-I.N.SKY, which is also in bad shapel.
The Russian Wikipedia article referenced by DGG in the previous AFD was deleted for lack of notability and being an advertisement in 2021.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Belarus. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The article currently is in poor shape. I also did a quick Google search but was unable to find any coverage in English. Fifthapril (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Granite Dells. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Granite Dells, Arizona[edit]

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

Appears to be a duplicate of Granite Dells. Although there's significant coverage of camps, events, etc in and around the geological formation, there's no evidence of a separate "populated place" that we would need to cover separately, particularly in its current stub form. –dlthewave ☎ 02:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 02:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete The topos suggest that this is a case of bad map reading on the mappers' part, because older maps show "Granite Dells" in the physical feature sanserif font at the same spot where the Roman pop place label shows up later. I couldn't find anything that suggested that anyone thinks of this as anything other than a physical feature/locale. Mangoe (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Yavapai County is almost as large as New Jersey, so any developed cluster tends to pick up a name. There is a area there with around 100 homes or homesites I think and it is known locally as the Granite Dells community, but it is more of a rural neighborhood. It lacks anything more that would allow development of an article. MB 03:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep literally hundreds of articles about this place from the early 1900s through the 2000s. Began as the site of a sanitorium, then became a resort, as well as the hosting a film studio which was used as the HQ for Hollywood studios doing location shooting in the area, and finally a subdivision outside Prescott. Here's just two of the recent articles, this and this Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect and merge any relevant information about the resort, film studio, etc. to Granite Dells. Both sources describe the geologic feature ("The otherworldly rock formations can be found north of Prescott", "They Paynes' conservation easement covers Granite Dells boulder piles..."). The resort, sanitarium, and subdivision can be described as human features at the natural site. Reywas92^Talk 16:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, that would be the best solution. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards Merging this article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete and/or Merge In the right case, I think there can be a basis for keeping a small population center's article separate from the article on the natural feature for which it is named. Thinking locally to me, see, e.g., Kent, Connecticut vs. Kent Falls State Park. However, at least moderate Googling supports (to me) what OP said: there is no evidence of a separate 'Granite Dells' populated place. Rather, it seems 'the' Granite Dells are located in Prescott, Arizona (as that article indicates), and this Granite Dells population center is either non-existent or just a non-notable neighborhood-type area within Prescott. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prescott, Arizona does not says the Dells are located there, it says "just north of the Prescott city center". They are in fact in an unincorporated area of the county. If there is a Merge/Redirect, it should be to either Yavapai County or Granite Dells. MB 19:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should've been clear, I was saying merge into the Granite Dells article. To your point, though, I took that to mean they still lay within the city, just north of the city center, but if they are truly in a separate, unincorporated area, my apologies. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 03:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Titis Maulida Rahma[edit]

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

Age 16, rank 253. Too early for Indonesia badminton players article. Basically fails WP:V. Stvbastian (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Badminton. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 03:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bernadine Anindiya Wardana[edit]

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

Age 16 rank 253. Its too early. Basically fails WP:V Stvbastian (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Badminton. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 03:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chiara Marvella Handoyo[edit]

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

It's too early for a Wikipedia article especially for Indonesian badminton players. Fails WP:N Stvbastian (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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!} 02:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rabadaba[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/hip hop artist, recent visit by WP:COI, only around 50 google results and no significant coverage or claim of notability. Andre🚐 02:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Music, and Uganda. Andre🚐 02:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - This is a standard retread of promotions for unknown African entertainers, as their publicists pay for coverage at gossip sites and entertainment blogs, and then use those articles as "evidence" for placement in Wikipedia. This one's sources are either dead or unreliable, and the musician has not received coverage from any legitimate music media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. No consensus for deletion, but apparent consensus to rename this article to "Caucus Executive of Ben Chifley if it is kept. (Or rather "Caucus executive", per our capitalization rules?) Sandstein 09:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frontbench of Ben Chifley[edit]

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

The article mashes together Chifley's ministry when in government (which already has an article) and his shadow ministry in opposition (which would have an article except that no one has gotten that far back yet) after he lost government in an unusual and confusing way. I've never seen them grouped together in one article before and it doesn't really make sense as an article subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Most of this is just excerpting the actual ministry articles, not sure why it should be like this. Reywas92^Talk 15:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Stating that "shadow ministry in opposition... would have an article except that no one has gotten that far back yet" is simply untrue. Ben Chifley had no shadow ministry in opposition. Australian shadow ministries did not exist until the 1960s. This article substitutes for Chifley's. As the article states, Labor Oppositions had what were called "Caucus executives". There is an argument that the frontbench from the period in government could be removed or that the article could be moved to another title (I am open to suggestions) but this is the article serves the same function that any of the historical shadow ministry articles do. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No other article mashes together actual ministries with opposition shadow ministries in this way, and so it can't be moved to another title because the very premise of this article doesn't make sense. There is already a longstanding, logical and widely-used approach to covering shadow ministries, and that they had a different name before the 1960s doesn't change that (we can just use the other name). The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It can be moved to another title and edited. It is possible to do both. Suggest another name and we can move it there and change the format to whatever is agreed upon based on the new title but suggesting deletion because the current title has a wider scope than it is necessary for the article to have is extreme.DilatoryRevolution (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is precedent for not-Shadow Cabinet opposition frontbenches to do use this format:

Happy to consider alternative titles but these should be moved with it if so. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of these were ever in government (with the exception of Clegg, whose article explicitly doesn't cover his time in the governing coalition), so the issue of mashing government ministries together in the same article doesn't arise. "Frontbench" is probably the most logical name in the third party cases; it falls down in the case of Labor because of cases like Chifley where a series of articles intended to cover oppositions winds up mashing government and oppositions together. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please suggest an alternative that suits your requirements. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Caucus Executive of" would follow the same structure as all the the other shadow ministry articles and avoid this weird situation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is agreeable. Thank you. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-title? Delete? Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - happy to consider re-titling, the article is notable enough so should not be deleted. Deus et lex (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just to be absolutely clear, is the consensus to retitle this article "Caucus Executive of Ben Chifley" or is there a different title being proposed? Any future retitling could be discussed if this article is kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My understanding is that there is consensus. I am happy to put the Labor "Frontbench of..." articles up for discussion for a move to "Caucus Executive of..." once the deletion discussion is closed. I can't imagine that there would be much objection to it.--DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hedgewars (video game)[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, as most sources are not independent or passing mentions. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per nom, indeed does not appear to be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, I agree with nom and Zxcvbnm. Though, I added another ref from Game Pressure/Gry Online, RS per WP:VG/RS, seems to be a decent review that is just SIGCOV. Wikimpan found another seemingly RS ref, but it's listed under news and leans on the shorter side for SIGCOV. The Softpedia one also is just situational on WP:VG/RS. With 1 ref that IMHO is decent in SIGCOV, and the other one being slightly worse, IMO whether the article meets WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT is borderline. Update: There are several good refs provided below. This might not be SIGCOV but is from a well-known newspaper, as well as this one. Might not be RS or SIGCOV for video games, though I'd like to change my vote from a weak delete to neutral. VickKiang (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I was unable to find any significant coverage in magazines in Archive.org; the majority of what I found is rather brief, and largely discusses game mechanics rather than giving a review. Here's what I found: "Non-webgame of the month" in PC Zone, brief review in Linux For You, brief coverage in Linux Journal, coverage in two lists of freeware games in PC Professionale (here and here), and #7 in a list of "The 10 best free software games" from Linux Voice. The strongest source seems to be the Gry Online review added by VickKiang - the Softpedia review reads as rather promotional to me and doesn't seem like a reliable review. I also found a research paper titled "Gender Differences in Emotional Responses to Cooperative and Competitive Game Play" that used the game as part of the study. Waxworker (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - the article is not different from large portion of List of open-source video games. For a non-AAA title made after 2000, that was not a subject of short-lived fame on reddit and does not put much effort into promotion, it’s virtually impossible to have more than one or two mentions. Given the sheer numer of software produced and games counted in 5- or 6-digit figures, being noticed at all already puts a title among the important entries. In particular if we’re talking about an open source game, which is by itself a niche genre. And within this particular genre, Hedgewars is a mature product with a long history, mentioned in computer magazines (Komputer Świat, 2008, Encyklopedia Gier Gry-Online, 2006), with half of or the same popularity as titles considered “major” among FOSS games (Wesnoth, 0AD, Warzone2100, Widelands, Freecol, Hedgewars). Hardly not a notable entry: or most of the aforementioned list would need to face deletion. I am all against placing just any thing in Wikipedia, as it’s not a place to promote random products, but Hedgewars clearly has its stable place in FOSS community and has been noticed outside of it, in multiple contexts. -- wikimpan (Talk) 07:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are impressive finds, and Komputer Swiat is apparently RS on WP:VG/RS despite the review being a bit short and might not meet SIGCOV. The following popularity isn't relevant to notability, IMHO, and the argument is like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for [hardly] not a notable entry: or most of the aforementioned list would need to face deletion, but this is still a good find! VickKiang (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification - it would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if not the entire paragraph precending it. To rephrase and make the point clearer: coverage considered sufficient for considering a subject notable must take context into account. A low probability binomial distribution, being limited to discrete values, with low sample size must produce noise with values from {0, 1} set and some outliers reaching outside that. The mention of other articles in the genre serves as an example of that. We can’t expect a FOSS game to have the same media coverage as JFK assassination. -- wikimpan (Talk) 01:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to clarify that I'm just saying that popularity isn't synonymous with notability and fame, which we already know. There are a few maybe good refs, but if they are RS is subject to debate. On [we] can’t expect a FOSS game to have the same media coverage as JFK assassination, I write a couple of articles on obscure board games, and of course they won't have loads of coverage. IMHO, a sensible bar is two or more in-depth, independent, reliable refs, note I've also changed my ! vote to neutral, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Other sources (all Czech): [18] (Bonusweb magazine on idnes.cz; major Czech news portal/online version of the MF Dnes newspaper), [19] (lidovky.cz; online version of the Lidove noviny newspaper), [20] (root.cz)

Seeing availability of sources like this I'm leaning to keep (in my POV, only reason for deletion seems to be a lack of an Amiga port). Pavlor (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete there aren't any truly reliable sources that are also significant. If someone could find something truly solid it's possible this could be rescued. Jontesta (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I appreciate the discussion and assessment of sources but I'm reading it as Weak Keeps and Weak Deletes that might result in a No Consensus outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t appear to meet GNG. Creamjuice (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you read the sources I provided above (eg. via Google translate)? Pavlor (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why I even bother to ask, that fellow editor is a blocked sock. Pavlor (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, Many of the refs on this article are primary sources, some even being download links for the game in question. In short, not reliable. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about the refs provided in this very AfD? Pavlor (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An Shouzhi[edit]

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

Most of the sources have nothing to do with the text and the two that do have something to do with the text do not make this person notable at all. Mucube (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not notable. Retinalsummer (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in my searches for sources about An Shouzhi (simplified Chinese: 安寿志; traditional Chinese: 安壽志). The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3D Stereo Caste[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources/reviews. All sources are unreliable primary sources. The only source found was this passing mention in the footnotes of an article. Screened at low-key universities (based on primary sources). DareshMohan (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)))Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Found nothing usable in a search. Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 00:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion not available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. 3 citations are of screenings, and the remainder is a fine coverage of the documentary. Doesn't make it notable. SWinxy (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planetarium Manager[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A browser based game that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG, whose article appears to have been created by the makers of the game. None of the links listed under "References" appear to actually be valid reliable sources. I did some searches but could not find any real significant coverage or reviews in reliable sources, just listings or entries in database style sites. It appears that an article on the same topic was already deleted at AFD way back in 2006, but it was recreated some time later, making it ineligible for a soft deletion via PROD. Rorshacma (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Sports, and Internet. Rorshacma (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Nothing found, company website, rest are help wanted ads for planetariums. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. This article is unusually poor, in that only a category and an image give any indication that this game is about soccer. Neither the word "football" nor the word "soccer" appears in the main text of the article. Nothing in the text contradicts my initial assumption that this game was about running an educational institution to teach people about outer space. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete A11 and G11. Article's creator is "PGames", said users signature says "Planetarium Games", a clear indication of COI, Article is EXTREMELY un-notable and the articles content doesnt describe the subject in question. Article was deleted in the past with no obvious changes to the articles quality.

It's not "invented by the person"- it's a game that exists, so A11 doesn't apply. And doesn't seem like G11 applies either. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe im confused, the article's creator CREATED the game in question. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 22:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Plainly fails WP:GNG. ~Bluecrystal004^{(talk · contribs)} 20:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I thought this was a game where you manage a planetarium. False advertising 0/10 very disappointed. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.