< September 08	September 10 >

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mohamed Hufane[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if they are enough, but I am finding some coverage. E.g. [1],[2],[3], [4], [5], and [6]. Cbl62 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the sigcov found by Cbl62. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to sources identified above and difficulty retrieving additional source material from Somalia. Cbl62 (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Waggers TALK 09:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gay Wales[edit]

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

No indication of notability, tagged for issues for a while now. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants, Sexuality and gender, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-first-physically-disabled-mr-19268861 https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/11/14/the-witches-anne-hathaway-limb-difference-paul-davies-mr-gay-wales/ https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ex-soldier-who-once-homeless-13156109 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/man-making-history-first-physically-11664503 https://attitude.co.uk/article/attitudes-bachelor-of-the-day-former-mr-gay-wales-paul-davies/14462/ https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/champion-kickboxer-who-came-out-14869991 Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources.
- Wales Online "Christopher Price has since been named Mr Gay Wales 2018"[7]
- Wales Online "This man is making history as the first physically-disabled Mr Gay winner... and he's about to represent Wales in Europe"[8]
- Channel 4 - a film on a Mr Gay Wales winner was shortlisted for the Iris Prize[9]
  - Gay London Life identifies the shortlisted film as Three Letters from Welsh filmmaker directed by Ian Smith[10]
- Wales Online An ex-soldier who was once homeless has been named Mr Gay Wales"[11]

The website of Mr Gay Europe confirms that Mr Gay Wales is a 'producer', which I take to mean a feeder competition.[12]

Verbcatcher (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning delete I have a hard time seeing these sources having sigcov on the pageant itself (except maybe the stuff about having their first disabled winner); they seem mostly about the competitors in the pageant. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per above, there are enough suitable sources to indicate notability. The fact that they're not currently in the article is not a sufficient reason for deletion. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Mellohi! that the sources mentioned above aren't actually discussing the competition itself "directly and in detail" as WP:SIGCOV requires, and my search didn't find anything else that would contribute to notability. Not seeing any solid alternatives to deletion either: there's no logical redirect target, and none of the content here is sourced well enough to be worth merging. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chandramukhi Pranasakhi[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. PROD removed, but User has now added source to it but not a reliable source PravinGanechari (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plethora of sources including some from 1999 and 2001 and a book source. Having trouble accessing the Deccan Herald archives, where this would have been reviewed but that doesn't mean it should be nominated for deletion. Surprised that such a high-key, box office success movie was nominated for deletion. DareshMohan (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Daresh's reasoning. QuietHere (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QuietHere , According to him do not form your personal opinion check all the sources yourself. ( exmple : After opening the source number 14 added by the user, there is information about actor Chiranjeev's movie. Is there any connection between that movie and this Chandramukhi Pranasakhi movie? [13]) PravinGanechari (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an error on my part. This is the correct source for source number 14. DareshMohan (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletedo not meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Saturnrises (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This source from 2001 says this: She began with small budget films and wasn''t taken too seriously to begin with. Then came Chandramukhi Pranasakhi and everything changed. How did Chandramukhi Pranasakhi happen? I don't know what made the director think of me for that role. When he told me about the tomboy character, I was excited. It was close to my own personality. So, he gave me the freedom to be myself on the sets, and it was easy for me. And yes, Malayalam producers have been complimenting me on my performance in Chandramukhi. Finally, didn't you expect to bag an award for Chandramukhi? My role has been appreciated, I have got my recognition; that's the award I have already received from the audience and the critics.. A pre-internet film that is a box office success and won notable state film awards, how does it not meet NFILM? The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Karnataka State Film Award for Third Best Film is a notable award given to both the director (the filmmaker) and the producer. DareshMohan (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ga Ga's[edit]

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

I feel like on the surface this meets GNG, but none of the BBC sources were archived so I can't verify them, and at least one is apparently an interview. Given the age in which they were active, I'm not able to find much of anything online. I'm not sure Gleeson being a sub, live-only guitar for Feeder is enough for music either. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 20:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 20:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If verifiable (I've not looked) then it might make sense to merge with Slaves to Gravity, which was basically a continuation of this band? Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They released an album and got some gigs, but I can find no in-depth or significant media coverage. They are only visible in typical streaming/retail services and unreliable genre directories. Also, I disagree with a merge to Slaves to Gravity as suggested above, because they are two different bands with some members in common, and there's not much to merge anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Changing my vote from above due to the Wayback Machine sources found by the next voter. Still a little skeptical on whether those add up to significant coverage, but the band was indeed noticed by BBC a few times back in the day. The article needs to be cleaned up accordingly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BBC sources in the article are available on the Internet Archive ([14] [15]). Admittedly these aren't much use – one is a fragmentary summary of an unarchived audio interview, the other is a gig review. But I found a couple more BBC sources that go into more detail ([16] [17]); with these, and the sources already in the article (eg. [18] [19]), I think there's enough coverage to sustain notability. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is one week at number 71 on the Official UK Singles chart enough for notability these days? Piecesofuk (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per provided GNG-compliant sourcing pointed out by Sojourner. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BBC links that will be enough to passing notability criteria.Fabiobengario (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ismini Dafopoulou[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 21:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Popular culture, and Greece. Kadı Message 21:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Beauty pageants. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only some gossip-like "news" on her in Greek media. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)——[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Collen Jefferson[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet standards of WP: GNG. KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Mississippi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, this is written like an essay with largely unreferenced prose. I find mentions of her, and she writes for a newspaper, but nothing that satisfied GNG. This is way too long for the few sources it contains. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been substantially updated since this comment. Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is an attorney and founder of a civil rights organization, e.g. 'There's a pattern': MS civil rights attorney on mistreated lynching cases across state (MSNBC, 2021), Attorney: Judge awards $11M to family of MS man found hanging from tree (Clarion Ledger, 2021), Mississippi cops sued over alleged civil rights violations against Black residents (ABC News, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Draftify per WP:BASIC - there is also an extensive report on her involvement in one of her cases: Mississippi’s history of lynchings haunts grieving mother (WaPo, 2021). There is information about the founding of her organization in Sports Illustrated (2022), some biographical information in the Northside Sun (2022). It also appears there are sources embedded in the article in an incorrect citation format that can also be used to help improve this article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC) updated !vote Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is certainly in better shape than it was, but ultimately I think the sourcing just isn't there. Of the sources listed above, the MSNBC one is a talk-show interview (not independent/reliable), the Clarion Ledger one just quotes a press release Jefferson issued (not independent/significant), the ABC News one is an interview without substantial non-interview content (not independent), the same is true for the Washington Post one, the Sports Illustrated one contains only a few sentences of non-interview content (not significant), and the same is true for the Northside Sun/Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting one. The other sources available in the article and elsewhere seem to have the same problems: they consist much more of Jefferson talking than of others talking about her. It is true that WP:BASIC gives us some leeway in cases where individual sources don't quite clear the sigcov threshold, but it does still require that the sources be independent, and my view is that once we discount the non-independent parts of these sources, what remains is much closer to the trivial coverage that BASIC says isn't sufficient. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing: a lot of the sources here are fairly recent, so it's possible that this is just a case of TOOSOON. If higher-quality sourcing turns up in the future, I would certainly have no problem with recreating or restoring the article at that time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I updated my !vote to draftify, because TOOSOON seems like a fair assessment, and it appears a case is continuing with the distinct possibility of future coverage, and I think I could develop this article with some additional time and coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftifying is fine by me as well—I agree that there's a reasonable prospect of more coverage in the coming months. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Musafir.com[edit]

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

per WP:CORP, no notabilty and a very normal comapny Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, United Arab Emirates, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a company like this could potentially be notable (c.f. Expedia) but there is no real claim of notability in the article, and I can't find any external evidence either. Thparkth (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definitely needs improvement and more citations but on Google Scholar you can find articles that referenced the company's information in published journals like this one, and it's published information on travel in the UAE is often cited by local newspapers like here, or here, and here. I think there are far less notable sites on here, and one that actually releases data on the local travel industry (albeit as a means of promotion) is worth having an article with basic information. ScholarofArabia (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion none of those links are substantially *about* musafir.com, which they would need to be in order to establish notability. Thparkth (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all this links are Trivial mentions, not talking about this website directly.--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 16:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a ton of results on Google News, ProQuest, etc., but none of them seem to be in-depth and independent enough to demonstrate notability. Most of what I'm seeing is either a passing mention (e.g. "according to Such-and-So from Musafir.com) or rephrased press releases that aren't actually independent content. As it stands I'm thinking the company isn't notable, particularly under the more exacting WP:NCORP standard, though I'm glad to reconsider if there are any solid sources that I've missed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments that the topic lacks significant coverage have not been countered. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Meshkhab SC[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and GNG. The citations are mostly mere mentions; koora and goalzz seem to be just indexes, if they're even WP:RS, which I doubt; iraqcenter.net fails WP:SPS. I did a BEFORE search in English (I don't speak Arabic) and didn't find anything useful. This is yet another sportsfan webhost that this editing community fails to prevent. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iraq. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not speak Arabic, you cannot judge the article as a candidate for deletion. In the article, 6 sources mentioned Al-Meshkhab's participation in official tournaments with other clubs. There is also the Al-Meshkhab page on Goalzz.com that I refer to in the External Links section. I think this is enough to show the notability of the club, and the sources do not have to be in English. SonOfBasra (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment below, a club participating in an official tournament does not automatically make it notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:SonOfBasra and that it is a team currently participating in a notable leagueIraq Division Two previous was also in Iraq Division One. KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in a notable league is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED. What matters is WP:GNG, which is clearly not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @KSAWikipedian: and @SonOfBasra:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)„“[reply]
Delete - the Kooora/Goalzz profile does not list any news articles (see this as an example of a club with multiple news reports). Regarding the six sources mentioned by SonOfBasra above:

The aforementioned kooora profile
azzaman.com: passing mention
iraqcenter.net: blog post
Al-Mada 1: passing mention
Al-Mada 2: passing mention
goalzz: league table

There is nothing that indicates notability to me. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nehme's argument for deletion is extremely convincing. Passing mentions do not add up to GNG and there is no presumption of notability for football clubs so notability would need to be demonstrated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Kooora profile mentions the club’s participation in the official tournaments, as is clear here, and the rest of the sources are of the type of news that mentions the details of the club’s participation in official tournaments with the rest of the clubs, and this is enough to show the club’s notability. SonOfBasra (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in competitions is not the criterion. Where are the multiple reliable and independent sources providing detailed media coverage of this club? Database sites like Kooora are not acceptable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable club that lacks sigcov. Avilich (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Military patrol at the 1936 Winter Olympics. ✗plicit 12:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalle Arantola[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, a before search didn't bring much either. No medal record, doesn't seem to meet GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 12:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Military, and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching the National Archives of Finland's newspaper archive by name gives a few older newspaper clippings as hits, with this being the most extensive story I found from a quick search. Other hits include [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] etc. See here for full results (website can be changed to English from top-right corner). I'm rather ambivalent about this: there's probably an argument to be made that the sources scrape by to WP:GNG, but on the other hand the (tragically) short career probably means there's relatively little to write here. Even if kept, likely to remain a permastub. Ljleppan (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ljleppan, thanks for bringing these up! I looked at a few of them and see some passing mentions, but I couldn't get my computer to load the first one you tagged. I'm not 100% sure if these sources can bring this subject up to GNG standards, I'll let the discussion stay open and get some new opinions :) but, thank you again for searching! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 16:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems borderline at best. I wonder if there's a case to be made that both this and Olli Huttunen (biathlete) (Ongoing AfD) would be merged to something like 1936 Finnish Olympic military patrol team, but I won't pretend like I had the requisite background to start that article. - Ljleppan (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Researching this further led me to Military patrol at the 1936 Winter Olympics, that could be a potential redirect target as well. Ljleppan (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ljleppan, I would support these subjects being redirected to that page as an alternative to deletion! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make the closer's life that bit easier, I'll clearly note my support for redirect to Military patrol at the 1936 Winter Olympics as an AtD. Ljleppan (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist: Keep, Delete or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just highlighting for potential closers that there's a redirect !vote in the discussion above from me, and Spf121188 has indicated their support for that result. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reiterating that I agree with Ljleppan, I support a redirect as mentioned above. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 12:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If a user wishes to merge content, please request at WP:UND. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporter Magazine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability; the only sources referenced currently in the article are primary sources and passing mentions in lists of awards. My WP:BEFORE also fails to turn up significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Nothing seems to have changed since its last AfD. Bluecrystal004 (talk · contribs) 17:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bluecrystal004 (talk · contribs) 17:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RIT Andre🚐 18:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable student newspaper with no independent third-party coverage. Article cites only one (primary) source and does not link to anything except RIT. How it survived the first nomination despite garnering no support for keeping it is truly a mystery. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I find the arguments for Delete more persuasive that this subdivision is not notable and is run-of-the-mill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silverside Heights, Delaware[edit]

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

Another generic 50-home subdivision/housing development. Two sources linked when deprodded are advertisements ("an attractive developement", "modern in every phase", "a handsome stone dwelling", "an attractive built-in corner cupboard" and the third is the routine "Community Profile" the local paper has done on scores of subdivisions. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Delaware. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing consists of thinly-veiled promotional coverage from when the subdivision was first built and a routine "neighborhood profile", none of which are sufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BEFORE check of web, news and books do not show sufficient sources to pass the general notability guideline. While there is a weak argument this place may meet GEOLAND's notability presumption, I consider that due to lack of sourcing WP:PAGEDECIDE can apply - subject does not warrant a standalone article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the general notability guideline with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," having multiple articles covering the topic "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content," see the following: Kid City from The News Journal; FINE HOME FOR THOMAS G. METZ from The Evening Journal; Ten Silverside Heights Homes Sold; More Planned from The Morning News; and FINE NEW HOME AT SILVERSIDE HEIGHTS from The Evening Journal (part 2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of these are the same advertisements I linked above. Even in 1927 people knew that "The H.B. Smith hot water boiler is conveniently located. Two eight-inch I-beams are installed, which insure against any settling of the house." isn't independent journalism, right next to the dozen ads saying "The cement and terra cotta pipe used in the new home of Lawrence P. Talley were furnished by E.J. Hollingsworth Co.", and a century later we shouldn't pretend this is encyclopedic content or that a generic subdivision is notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep Of the sources provided, "Kid City" and "10 homes sold" seem GNG-compliant, but the "Fine New Home" articles are not as they are not about the neighbourhood itself (i.e. not SIGCOV). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "10 homes sold" is also an advertisement and does not contribute. In 1940 they might not have been required to have a "sponsored content" disclaimer, but no jounalist was independently writing "Real wood-burning fireplaces have been installed in the living rooms, and venetian blinds add to the general beauty of the homes." as if it was really a public service to endorse "Mr. Julian personally supervises all operations in the Silverside Heights development, making sure all work is properly and soundly done"...read the rest of the page beyond the clipping and see the rest of the ad on the right for "A Low Cost House With High-Price Features – A.A. JULIAN". Turning the page to p.32, you have a picture of a "Fortunato-built stone house [that] will be open tomorrow for visitors" and a picture of another home "equipped with an oil burner" that's also "open for inspection all day tomorrow." Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize advertorials for new housing developments, nor local profiles of where "Everyone is at least a 'howdy' neighbor." Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Leaning Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOT, WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND: Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. There is nothing notable or noteworthy about this unincorporated community beyond "it exists" but so do millions of others around the globe. It is also noncompliant with WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Atsme 💬 📧 12:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChinICT[edit]

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

G11, particularly surrounding Franck Nazikian. Created by now blocked user (Gravesv38) and edited mainly by SPA’s (James5Smith, Jimmyjr3rd), blocked spam accounts (SneekiMillennial), banned socks (Johngoldberg5) and obvious but unbanned socks (Chemonges001, Oscar Chemonges)  accounting for a majority of the edits over the page's history. Bobs at 9 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been no word on whether this subject is notable enough to have an article. We don't delete articles just because "bad guys" edited them. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Quartly, Jules (2012-04-11). "If you can make it in China, you can make it anywhere". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  The article notes: "Business would be boring if it wasn't for the tech entrepreneurs turning geek into gold, so the biggest conference on rising star China's online moguls and tech innovation should be quite the draw. Expect bright ideas, serious players and even a little bit of adulation. The last Chinict I attended was two years ago and as much as I was impressed by what the founder of China's Internet had to say, other high profile attendees, and lunch, it was the crazy networking going on that made the biggest impression. There was an embarrassing number of opportunities to meet and greet, and everyone was dead keen to introduce their ideas. Either that or somebody who had already cashed in their idea was telling an audience that hung onto every word how they could do the same. ... Notable international attendees listed include Andrey Andreev of Badoo, a website that boasts of hosting 147 million "boys and girls" looking for dates; one of the most successful tech investors ever, Yossi Vardi; and Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin."
2. Brown, Grace (2013). "CHINICT Report on CNC World - China's largest TV Channel in English". CNC World. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12 – via YouTube.
  This is a 3.5 minute television report about CHINICT. The reporter notes, "This is China's biggest technology conference. It's facilitating more than 5 billion US dollars in transactions for tech startups and stars alike from funding to listings to takeovers, and it's been widely welcomed. Hundreds of engineers and entrepreneurs are gathering here today to get a glimpse of the latest tech trends, not to mention plenty of networking with investors, prospective service providers, and possible business partners."
3. Downes, Larry; Nunes, Paul (October 2015). "Big Bang Disruption Comes to China". Boao Review. Boao Forum for Asia. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12 – via Social Science Research Network.
  The article notes: "Since 2005, for example, CHINICT has run hackathons that give developers two days to produce new applications, with the best achievements receiving the CHINICT award, on-going mentoring, and funding op- portunities from high-profile investors and luminaries, as well as valuable prizes and networking opportunities with CHINICT’s platform partners."
4. Li, Siqi 李斯奇 (2013-05-28). "第九届CHINICT"科技明星在中国"峰会在京举行" [The 9th CHINICT "Technology Stars in China" Summit was held in Beijing]. China Today (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "From May 18th to 20th, 2013, the 9th CHINICT "Technology Stars in China" Summit was held in Beijing Tsinghua Science and Technology Park. More than 200 top technology elites and world-renowned Internet entrepreneurs from home and abroad came to participate. It is understood that the summit is the world's largest summit on Chinese high-tech innovation entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs, and has been committed to providing a platform for the scientific and technological elites in China and the world to show themselves."
5. Hu, Yuan 胡媛 (2012-05-24). "中国互联网备军国际化" [China's Internet preparations for internationalization]. Forbes. Archived from the original on 2012-11-13. Retrieved 2012-11-13.
  The article notes: "This is the eighth time the Frenchman Franck Nazikian has come to China to hold the "CHINICT Technology Star in China (www.CHINICT.org)" event. As the founder of CHINICT, since 2005, Funkner has invited Internet star companies in China to participate in this summit together with foreign Internet companies and investors."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ChinICT (simplified Chinese: 科技明星在中国; traditional Chinese: 科技明星在中國) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's findings. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjaane (2000 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources are all listings in databases. Was going to PROD it but went for AfD after one said to. All sources online realted to Do Anjaane or Anjaane (2005 film) (which should be moved to Anjaane given the lack of sources for this film). DareshMohan (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ reliable sources exist both on the page and on the internet. Rediff, Mid-Day - reliable sources, are used on article. Needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Rediff source is just a table while the mid day source is dead. All other sources are databases/passing mentions. Also, the Rediff source says that the film was shelved and not released. The Bollyswar source says : it was shelved before work on it resumed. Every Indian film that is released is usually on Box Office India, see this. DareshMohan (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Also, WP:NOTDATABASE. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vitali Tikhomolov[edit]

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

Has played 5 games in a semi-pro league and the article is currently not sourced to any WP:SIGCOV. Searches in Google News and DDG in Russian failed to yield any decent coverage. The best I could find were trivial mentions in 35media and Krassever. No indication of passing WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG (and would have even failed the old guideline WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a league listed at WP:FPL). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to British big cats. So, this is a redirect, not a deletion. The content remains in case better sources appear in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beast of Bevendean[edit]

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

Redirect to British big cats. Current article has five sources but they are all from the same local news paper. Searched Google, Google Scholar, and Google News, majority of sources for this are about the movie Young Hunters: The Beast of Bevendean, a handful of articles from the same news paper, and one Ukrainian journal article that lists it as a mythozoonyms (has a proper name but does not exist). Redirect to British big cats is the right call for this article as it's material will fit in better there and be able to be seen in context. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and United Kingdom. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Attempted to speedy delete but it was contested, looking to redirect to British big cats. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand: The article is a +stub with several supporting citations and will expand over time. This is all that is required for an article to be accepted at Wikipedia. Duck Dawny (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC) sock !vote struck[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure really what more can be done to expand this article. Would you prefer it if it was sent to draft instead so you can work on it? You might have access to materials and sources that aren't online but it might take some time to gather etc. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please just leave the article right where it is...where it should be. Thank you Duck Dawny (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. As it currently is, there is nothing in this article that shows it has WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. A short paragraph at British big cats would work fine. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see anything here that shows extensive coverage.★Trekker (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a bit of rearranging and added sections and references. I believe this subject passes our notability guidelines now. As an aside, I was astonished just how many "Beast of..." articles there are, and one is a snapping turtle (Beast of Busco)! The Beast of Bevendean is covered in books, articles and in a movie, so it is fitting that we also cover the subject. See other UK Big Cat articles: Beast of Bodmin Moor, Beast of Buchan, Beast of Exmoor, Beast of Gévaudan (Possible wolf -France) Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the majority of sources for this article are news articles from a one (I presume the local) newspaper, with the others being cryptozoological compendiums (not exactly discriminating in their material) and a single low-budget children's movie. The newspaper articles are all within a relatively short (3 year) time span as well, which brings up the issue of WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that there are other "Beast of..." articles in immaterial per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As I said before, this article lacks significant coverage and notability. After reviewing the sources, it warrants a sentence or two on the British big cat article at most. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: I am sure you know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an essay. Lightburst (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However it explains the well-established principle that each article should meet the notability requirements on its own merits. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: I believe it does. I have added several more references. We just have so many contradictory policies, guidelines and essays and they are all cited as equally important. Perhaps have a look at the article again. I would find more but I may be wasting my energy if the participants are not inclined to consider the additions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been checking on the article, including just now. I have yet to see anything that represents significant coverage and notability. I cited OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because for some reason you brought up other British Big Cats (and, bafflingly, a French wolf), as if having an article on one justifies an article on all. Which it most assuredly does not. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per SilverTiger12 (surely one of their related species is well qualified on this topic :) ). MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to British big cats. The only in-depth coverage all is from The Argus (Brighton), a local newspaper; the rest is about the movie (another article). I'm not convinced that this merits a standalone article. Just assuming that more sources will be found later does not suffice; we will need some more now. And I couldn't find any. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LordPeterII: Notability and WP:V can be determined with WP:RS even if it is local. There is not a distinction in the guideline WP:GNG points 3, 4 and 5. This subject has a movie about it, and an in depth source. We keep articles with far less. There are more sources out there to show that it has worked its way into popular culture: It has its own beer!. Lightburst (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: Good point there, I didn't say that right. These local newspaper sources do count, but I'd argue that per WP:GNG "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability" even multiple mentions in the same local newspaper do not signify notability. Because if not, I could quickly write 10+ articles about local sportspeople from my hometown, who happen to have been featured a lot in the local newspaper – they are not notable, of course; and that same reasoning leads me to reject the refs to The Argus (Brighton) as sufficient alone. The beer also is a fun fact, but again I could name two dozen local craft beers, whose name does help nothing in establishing notability for their namesake. I'd be much more lenient if repeated coverage was only from one newspaper, but that one happened to be The Times, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or some other, major and supra-regional paper. As it stands, I don't see enough sources for a stand-alone article, yet I also see enough coverage to not have this simply deleted. A redirect (& mention in that other article) can preserve the information in a way that still informs people interested in it. btw, "We keep articles with far less" sounds a bit like the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS you criticized above ;) --LordPeterII (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh..."We keep articles with far less" is me saying we have WP:V and WP:N and there are enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. But I already struck my ivote. I can't tilt at windmills over an abominable snowman article. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: I know, I was only teasing you, hence the smiley ;) But anyway, you're entitled to your own opinion; there's no need to strike your vote if you believe the sources suffice; in this case it isn't as clear as in many others. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since it is an example of the folklore of British big cats. The Brighton Argus source and the local beer source could be used for a subsection at British big cats, but they are not enough to justify a stand alone article. And sources like this are not reliable per WP:FRIND. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Expand, & Flag. It just needs a more citations needed banner at top. This cat legend has a movie based on it, as compared to the big cat articles Beast of Bodmin Moor and Beast of Exmoor. 5Q5|^✉ 11:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@5Q5: I agree that would be the way to go if there were sources. AfD is not cleanup, so if a lack of citations in the article was the issue, we'd flag the article and improve it. The issue at hand is, imo, a dearth of sources we could use for that. Reliable, independent sources are as elusive as the beast itself, it seems; and in that way it does not compare to e.g. the Beast of Bodmin Moor, which was discussed by the BBC and The Independent. You'd greatly help the keep cause if you could identify some. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The Argus is a notable newspaper which has covered this topic well and, of course, there was an entire film built around the animal. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it just the local newspaper covering this? Are there any police reports of people calling to report it? Doesn't England have security cameras on every single street? Dream Focus 05:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British big cats seems reasonable to me. This appears to be a local curiosity and would fit well in that larger article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who contested the speedy deletion has been banned for being a sock. Just letting people know incase they wondered why they stopped participating. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG and is notable. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Cooper III[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Cooper was ranked as high as 12th in the world welterweight rankings of Fight Matrix, which is just short of the top 10 requirement. Still fails WP:GNG in my opinion, since the articles last deletion. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Hawaii. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of coverage in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, see [25] [26] [27] (p2) and [28]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only brought back the page since I felt that I added enough sources besides fight coverage to warrant WP:GNG. Along with the stuff from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser BeanieFan11 provided, [29][30][31][32][33][34]~~~ HeinzMaster (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While much of the coverage appears to be local, at least some of the articles are not directly related to specific fights. Papaursa (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. There is plenty of significant coverage on him from multiple independent sources, as shown by BeanieFan11 and HeinzMaster. Alvaldi (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per workable coverage discovered by Heinz and Beanie. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Kamon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NACTOR with near-nonexistent filmography and two flop albums without articles. Additionally WP:NOTINHERITED as her only shred of notoriety has come from coattailing Karen Carpenter and Phil Ramone. Sourcing is atrocious (Facebook and IMDb) with no attempt made to improve article in the three years since its first nomination was closed. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is about the best I could find, [35], very much a one-hit wonder, with scant sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than criticizing the quality of the article, the more relevant question is whether the notability criteria is too restrictive. If you see or hear a reference to someone and can't go to Wikipedia to find out who it is, what good is Wikipedia? Jkolak (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons and sources found in the first AFD. It appears that the article hasn't been improved very much since then but the findings stand. MB 05:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason user MB gives. Newspapers.com has additional sources as described in the earlier AfD. There is a text link on newspaper.com's pages. Here are two of the additional sources:

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/511373161/ (feature article with photo).
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/372432903/ (marriage to Phil Ramone and "Heart of You" album).

Unfortunately I don't have the time to add these to the article myself so I put these links on her talk page. 5Q5|^✉ 11:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per lengthy list of sources at last discussion. Deletion is not cleanup. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in last AFD and [36], [37], [38]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiobengario (talk • contribs) 09:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue River (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing suitable was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. The Film Creator (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found this review from Sun Sentinel [39] and this [40] from Des Moines Register. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as user Donaldd23 stated above. According to these newspapers ([41],[42]) it passes the Wikipedia standard. Vicozico13 (talk) 8:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I withdraw nomination per consensus and per NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabetta Sgarbi[edit]

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

The person doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO and WP:DIRECTOR in particular 多少战场龙 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the citations suggest any kind of notability at all. They're all passing mentions of her in articles about someone or something else (and the mentions are because they asked her a question about the real subject of the article), or they are pages she made or that a company she works for made:

The FranceTV page is about Umberto Eco. Sgarbi answers a couple of questions about him. The article isn't about her; it's about Eco.
The Corriere page is about a new publisher. Sgarbi answers a couple of questions about it. The article isn't about her; it's about the publisher.
The Bombiani pagehas a paragraph about Sgarbi and two other people, saying those three people created a quarterly magazine in 1990. Note that this is the web site for Bompiani, the company she worked for, so it doesn't tell us anything about notabilty.
lamilanesiana.eu is the webpage created by some festival she runs, so it doesn't tell us anything about notability.
The Torino Film Festival page doesn't give me any text at all. I have no idea what it might say. I looked at the HTML and it's just a bunch of Javascript. Maybe the text was deleted? Or it only works on certain browsers?
Comune di Ro is a few sentences saying where she has worked.

--Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a review of GNews appears to support WP:BASIC notability. E.g. from Corriere della Sera, Elisabetta Sgarbi: «Io, attrice per un imprevisto» (2022, based on an interview, with secondary context about her acting/directing career), Elisabetta Sgarbi: «Leggo ad alta voce e sogno il rilancio della Milanesiana» (2020 interview with secondary context about her publishing career and some biographical information), Funerali di Eco, Elisabetta Sgarbi: «Ora riuniamo tutto il catalogo» (2016, quoted as one of (Google translated) "well-known names in Italian publishing" and for details related to her business and highlighted in the article headline), Elisabetta Sgarbi lascia Bompiani ‘Ecco perché lancio La nave di Teseo’ (2015, interview with secondary context about her editorial/publishing career - what she continues to do with her career is about her). There is also Extraliscio, il film e il video diretti da Elisabetta Sgarbi, il tour (Rolling Stone, 2021, notes (Google translated) "the Siae Award awarded to Sgarbi for creative talent", otherwise mostly providing brief context for the film and "the program of La Milanesiana, the "laboratory of excellence" of literature, cinema, music, art, science, philosophy conceived by Sgarbi".), Extraliscio, Elisabetta Sgarbi fa ballare il cinema italiano (HuffPost, 2020 review), A ritmo di liscio. Elisabetta Sgarbi porta a Venezia 77 la Romagna più vera (e punk) delle balere (Elle, 2020, review with a focus on Sgarbi), Elisabetta Sgarbi nominata presidente dell'ente di gestione dei Sacri Monti (2021 Torino Oggi report on her selection as president for the management of the Sacri Monti of Piedmont and Lombardy includes a history of her career), La Milanesiana, grande successo per la 23° edizione ideata e diretta da Elisabetta Sgarbi: oltre 7 mln di views (Il Giornale d'Italia, 2022), and from La Stampa: Elisabetta Sgarbi, Virtuosa in Vaticano (2022, begins with (Google translated), "Elisabetta Sgarbi has been nominated a member of the Pontifical Academy or more precisely of the "Pontifical Distinguished Academy of Fine Arts and Letters of the Virtuous at the Pantheon". The publisher and founder of the Nave di Teseo and the Milanesiana..."). Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC) sources added - Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC) sources added - Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Beccaynr. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do agree to Beccaynr. Nassimela (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to sources found by Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has a larger article on the Italian Wikipedia: Elisabetta Sgarbi. I added the link to her English page. 5Q5|^✉ 10:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. $Salvio$ 17:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The customer is always right (disambiguation)[edit]

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

At the very least, this page fails WP:TWODABS, with two of the associated pages being redlinked. Since the Sin City story is a three-page comic story without its own page, you could argue that even a hatnote isn't necessary. The DAB page definitely isn't useful, though. fuzzy510 (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. fuzzy510 (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inclined to agree that this is not serving any purpose and is not actually disambiguating anything. In fact, I think this would fall under the WP:CSD#G14 criteria and have tagged it as such. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Lankshear[edit]

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

Subject is a 17 year old soccer player who has recently transferred from Sheffield United Under-18 to Tottenham Hotspur Under-18. He has not made a first team appearance and does not meet eligibility criteria LenF54 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman I think the Sky Sports piece and Examiner piece and Evening Standard article go into sufficient detail to count as significant coverage. Or is the issue that these articles all cover one event? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sky Sports is ROUTINE transfer rumour piece; Examiner better but still similar; Yahoo is brief but more detailed. Overall I don't think it's enough, sorry. Giant Snowman 18:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has got coverage in BBC 1, Sky Sports 2 and several other media channels 3 but yes he has not made his debut yet. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Hasn't even played a single game for Spurs yet and the links provided are all generic "prospect signed by X club" press blurbs. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. I have added to the article the piece from the Tottenham Hotspur website that confirms the player has (only) joined the academy and I have amended the Infobox accordingly. LenF54 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck out as you've already established your position by opening the discussion. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you. LenF54 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:YOUNGATH. Coverage seems to be routine reporting of signings and promising young players. He's yet to have WP:SIGCOV of his own performance. If he is as promising as some scouts believe then he will meet such critera before long - but he's not there yet. Blue Riband► 20:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elektra (espresso machines)[edit]

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

Promotional, not in a tone with encyclopedia material with no reliable sources. Delete per WP:NCORP and PROMO 多少战场龙 (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cimbali[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NCORP - no reliable sources and notability, however much promotion and unreferenced bald statements. 多少战场龙 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HMP Consultancy Services[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent, reliable sources that support the notability of this subject. References in the article are either the company's website, or references about labour laws in India without mentioning this company. The article was written by an employee of the company (as disclosed on their talk page: [43]). Singularity42 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Singularity42 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The quality of the Article needs to improve but the Company is Notable and the Book an Journal Sources considered are reliable. 27.54.172.71 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— 27.54.172.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Muhandes (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional and horribly written. The keep vote above is by a single-purpose account with only one edit (here, naturally) and should not be taken into consideration. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG . Created by employee with WP:COI. --Muhandes (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 14:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

River's End (2005 film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing suitable was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a single article in Newspapers.com - I can't really find anything else to show notability or really even suggest that more coverage may be available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purna Nepali[edit]

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

Not renowned as a musician because the text reveals that he worked for Gopal Yonjan and taught dancing to the royal family. This is demonstrated by the photograph, which "Nabin" says is his own creation but plainly identifies WP: COI and doesn't have enough references to meet WP:MUSICBIO. DIVINE (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nepal. DIVINE (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Private Museums of Russia[edit]

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

Not suitable and notable for wikipedia. Original research and lack of reliable external sources. Oliver Virk (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Doesn't seem inherently unsuitable to me. Sources are weak but not terrible. Thparkth (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable, AFD is not cleanup. Andre🚐 18:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the subject received significant coverage in non-English sources; per WP:NONENG this is no reason to doubt notability. Reliability of sources was discussed but no reason to believe that they are unreliable, with assertions to the contrary. By consensus, the subject meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tigor Silaban[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable doctor. Unfortunately, all of the sources are in Indonesian which I can't read. I didn't find any English-language sources that gave any indication this person could meet WP:ANYBIO. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as article author. Subject’s death in 2021 received significant full-length article coverage by a number of Indonesian national-level news, e.g. by Kompas ([44]) and CNN Indonesia ([45]). Before death, several national news outlets covered him in detail as the primary subject too - detik.com in 2018 ([46]) and suara.com in 2015 ([47]). While he’s not the most notable doctor by any means, I fail to see this article violating WP:GNG. Nominator’s “I don’t speak Indonesian” argument is frankly silly, refer to WP:NONENG. Juxlos (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That fact that I can't read Indonesian wasn't meant to be a reason to delete this, just an explanation of why I went looking for English sources. Perhaps you could translate some appropriate passages from the sources which demonstrate GNG? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this appears to be a translation of id:Tigor Silaban, but doesn't have the attribution required by WP:Translation#License requirements. That's also not a reason to delete, but it does need to get fixed. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
…I wrote the idWiki article right after the enWiki one. Are you just assuming every non-English native editor aren’t aware of basic rules? Juxlos (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that now. My apologies. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of the Kompas obituary:
"Tigor Silaban is a legendary doctor in Papua. For around four decades he devoted his life to provide health services for the people there."

First couple paragraphs of the 2018 detik.com article:
"Papua is not only wide in area, but the condition of infrastructure there is generally still limited. It is not surprising that many doctors, teachers, and other professions do not last long while serving there. As a result, the health condition of the people in Papua, especially in the interior, is still very worrying. From a handful of doctors, that is Tigor Silaban, who has devoted himself to Earth of Cenderawasih since 1979 until now.

Tigor Silaban is actually a general practitioner. But Papua's very minimal and isolated condition demands that he become a surgeon. Not only cutting the tumor, he also had to perform fracture surgery with his perfunctory equipment."

He is notable for being one of a few long-serving doctors in the region. Not every notable person is going to be covered by Anglophone media. Juxlos (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator writes "This appears to be a non-notable doctor. Unfortunately, all of the sources are in Indonesian which I can't read. I didn't find any English-language sources…" With respect, Wikipedia in any language is supposed to be a resource for global knowledge. You can use google translate if you don't want to learn Indonesian. There is an Indonesian language Wikipedia, too, and it includes English language topics and sources. If there's something odd here, it's that each of the sources is an obituary, but that also speaks to how important he was seen in Indonesian Papua. I will guess there are many more sources out there which were published during Silaban's lifetime. CorrTimes (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 of the 6 sources are obituaries. 2 are written well within subject's lifetime (refs 3 and 6). Juxlos (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant keep, sources in the article are substantive, need to AGF that they are as reliable as they are described to be. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KOMPAS and detik is as reliable as you can get (short of Antara) for Indonesian news online. Jubi is the largest local news outlet for Indonesian Papua. Juxlos (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You did say that already; I'm merely pointing out to the closer that I'm relying on your judgement regarding reliability. As such, repeating that isn't going to do very much. Thanks for the information though. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Dominic Subdivision[edit]

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

Non-notable subdivision. Fails WP:GEOLAND. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND per nom. There are several villages in various towns and cities which carry that name. SBKSPP (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of references as well. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Udch[edit]

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

Created by a user who is now blocked for copyright violations, translation issues, and competence problems relating to poor English comprehension and writing.

At best, this is a slightly overwrought dictionary definition. At worst, it is sourced solely to a sketchy language-teaching website (see their "About us" page), with zero other sources located on a search. Either way, it should be deleted in the absence of reliable sourcing showing that offensive corridors created by the Ottomans are so notable compared to any other type of offensive corridor that they require their own article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I search this up I get results related to some university in Chiclayo, which isn't a good first impression. I've searched both names on DergiPark, "Udch" gives no results at all while "Uch" gives a few unrelated things. I don't know where this is translated from, but there doesn't seem to be anything pointing to the existence of such thing. Likely a hoax. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unintelligible and unreferenced. Mztourist (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am surprised to find that the only reference on what is clearly a Turkish subject is a Russian one. I also find that article extremely imprecise as to what it is about. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Quaker-Dokubo[edit]

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

Subject is not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Most sources are only passing mentions, the two sources that give the most support are a transcript of an interview and one about his recent death. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Africa. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Special Adviser to the President of any Country, especially one with a dedicated ministry such as Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs is a good claim of notability. Weak because it is not an elective position. For what it 's worth, his predecessor (Paul Boroh) was notable. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m not completely convinced that the subject’s special adviser roles would make them notable, but I’d be more inclined to agree if there was anything substantive to be said about his work in those roles - i.e. if the article focused on the things that provide the claim of notability that would make sense. However the article says nothing about them so they don’t seem, after all, to have been that important. Mccapra (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I was able to find lots of sources in major Nigerian newspapers about this man, in addition to the obituaries I could find sources such as this in Vanguard, this in Sahara Reporters and this in P.M. News, among many other sources. In short, he clearly passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not convinced he passes WP:PROF but with plenty of national-level news coverage for his work for the amnesty program, his removal from the program and rebel threats to resume fighting after his removal, and for his recent death, he appears to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep David Eppstein makes a fair point, closing AfD. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manas Kumar Ghosh[edit]

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

Subject fails the criteria for WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The details in the "Early life and education" and "Career" sections are unsupported by the inline references. Several other sections are completely unsourced. The only mentions of the subject in secondary sources, such as in this and this, are trivial mentions, against the second bullet point of WP:GNG. Article overall reads more like a CV than a biography. Uhai (talk · contribs) 05:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uhai (talk · contribs) 05:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The details in the "Early life and education" and "Career" possibly can be developed. The subject has been or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area and also a reviewer of various publication house. Khorang (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no sources to support keeping, might be more in the native language though. Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are various sources which verifies that the academician was also in the news, published articles which are important to the subject, worked as a reviewer for multinational publishers and had contributed to film studies in his native language in writing. Khorang (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem here is that, while Ghosh has written plenty about other people and things, hardly anyone referenced here has written about him. I'm not sure if he's "notable" in the abstract sense, I'd like to think that we all are, but it's impossible to write a decent article about his life using only his own words and opinions.CorrTimes (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article references several academia.edu links, unreliable sources, and minor mentions of the subject not resulting in WP:SIGCOV. VV 20:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see significant independent coverage of him that meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing explicitly with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The arguments to keep are extremely weak; providing sources you know not to be reliable isn't helpful. However, without anybody but the nom supporting deletion, a delete outcome isn't possible, and the discussion has gotten unpleasant enough that a relist doesn't seem reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian Institute of American Football[edit]

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

De-PROD'd as "this institute is part of the much broader IFAF making it notable". Inaccurate - notability is not inherited from parent institutions. WP:GNG must be met to support notability. When I initially PROD'd I found no coverage of this organization, and nothing has been added that indicates otherwise (I do not consider "market research" to be reliable significant coverage).

I would be fine with a redirect to IFAF Africa, but since the PROD was contested I feel that a WP:BLAR would also be contested without consensus at AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, American football, and Nigeria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was also looking for a suitable redirect target. I didn’t find that one but agree that would be a good outcome. Mccapra (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + Comment: I thought it would be a neat project to try to save an article from deletion, but so many links discussing the institute have died with no archives, making it really difficult to find any more information on it, but there clearly was more at one time. I personally think that it is notable enough with other countries in Africa having their own IFAF subarticle, and I personally do not agree the article requires deletion now especially compared to how it has looked for 9 years now. But I also trust you have much more experience with this than I do, so if you think deletion is necessary; I will support you because of that. I personally would opt for keeping the article and just leaving the more citations needed tag on top of the article incase more supporting citations are found- because the article isn't bad anymore, it just needs expanding. Johnson524 (Talk!) 10:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can't rely on the organization's own website and two sentences in some sketchy market research to support a claim of notability. We need significant coverage from reliable sources. You might want to read the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organizations to get a better idea of how notability is established. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Premeditated Chaos given that you nominated this article for deletion because you found "no coverage" of the organization, perhaps reconsider given the coverage that I have found ranging from being mentioned in a few sentences to more substantial paragraphs about it. I think these sources can easily be used to improve sourcing in the article and expand it per @Johnson524. I'm leaning towards Keep since it seems to have substantial coverage.

As @Johnson524 mentioned I also came across that "many links discussing the institute have died with no archives" however I was able to find these following sources that are all still online and working:

These are in no particular order. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PiccklePiclePikel for finding these! I would have to double check if some of those sources are reliable enough to be used, but it is really good to see so much coverage is still online! In doing some research of my own, I found one more citation from Ozy (media company) which I have already added to the page 🙂 Johnson524 (Talk!) 16:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @Johnson524, I found that Ozy article as well, it's the 7th on the list. I just went ahead and included the sources generously because even the few sources that are only mentions, which is not enough to establish notability, could still be used in the article to reference certain facts or other things that that one sentence or mention happens to be talking about. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PiccklePiclePikel: Oops, didn't see you also found that Ozy link somehow 😅 Hopefully the majority of those links can be used to improve the article in some way! Johnson524 (Talk!) 17:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PiccklePiclePikel, Johnson524, these sources do not support a claim to notability. And frankly the quality and the presence of duplicates makes me doubt you even read many of these. From top to bottom:

Not about the organization, this is just the NAIF getting quoted in an article about football getting played in Nigeria.
Same thing
What makes this site reliable? It's got no byline, no editorial policy, no staff page, none of the hallmarks of professional journalism.
Trivial mention of the name, on what looks like a non-professional blog anyway
Same as 1 and 2 - NAIF getting mentioned in an article about football in Nigeria in general
PM News Nigeria turned into a download link for a zip, so that's a no from me
Ozy.com mention is another single-line mention in an article about football in Nigeria generally
This is a word for word copy of source 1
So is this PressReader source actually!
Another trivial mention
Duplicate of the Ozy source! Come on.
Literally a fan blog, zero indication of professionalism, and it only mentions the organization in a single sentence, again
A blog is not a reliable source

Not a single one of these constitutes significant coverage from a reliable source. I hope you will strike your keep votes because they are in no way supported by the actual fact of the sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Me and PiccklePiclePikel both said that these sources were probably not reliable, and that the only reason PiccklePiclePikel put those on there was to establish that there was coverage of the topic online, even talking specifically about the blogs in his original post saying that they might be useful for further research, not to actually be used in the article. If you see the only one of those sources I actually added to the article was the Ozy.com one because even though it was one paragraph, it did back up some of the information in the article. Johnson524 (Talk!) 22:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there was no way most of those sources were going to go on the article to begin with- being very clearly not reliable, they were just posted to establish that there was still coverage of the topic still online. Johnson524 (Talk!) 22:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of presenting sources at an AfD is to substantiate a claim to notability. Do you understand how none of these sources support any claim to notability? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand, but I did not post them, I was just backing up the reason for why PiccklePiclePikel posted them. Johnson524 (Talk!) 23:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He posted them claiming "it seems to have substantial coverage", which is blatantly untrue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article needs additional sources, but it appears that those sources may exist. Deletion is not replacement for cleanup: I would give this article a few months, and if cleanup cannot or does not occur, then it's clear that this article cannot be brought up to notability. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s existed since 2011. Mccapra (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears that it was not nominated for deletion until now. Deletion is not a replacement for cleanup and orphaned articles are in need of cleanup. If it cannot be cleaned up, it should be deleted. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe by some of my recent edits the article is no longer an orphan (via redirects from Nigeria national American football team which is linked on multiple pages) but the article does need further citations for verification. I support the keeping for now but deletion if nothing else can be found to further reliably cite the article. Johnson524 (Talk!) 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, the two users above did their best to find sources and the best they could come up with were, per my source analysis, trivial mentions and unreliable blogs. We cannot retain an article in the absence of sources. Deletion is not a replacement for cleanup, but in this instance, there are zero reliable sources to clean the article up with. @Johnson524, your insistence on keeping flies in the face of WP:NORG and WP:GNG. There is literally no policy-based argument for keeping this, given the absolute lack of sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PMC - While I agree with you in regard to sources, I disagree with you in regard that no reliable sources exist, at least at this moment. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, confidently asserting there must be sources without actually providing any is not a policy-based rationale for keeping an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PMC - Please don't misrepresent my opinion and please don't misrepresent an essay as policy. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what way am I misrepresenting your opinion that "it appears that those sources may exist" and "I disagree with you in regard that no reliable sources exist"? Twice now you have confidently asserted that sources exist. Where? In what publications?

The general notability guideline is the governing standard the essay refers to, which requires multiple reliable significant sources to ensure that the policy of verifiability of information is met. I might ask you not to represent my statements. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To revisit what I initially said - this article has had just a handful of edits in the past several years. and two people have had a short period of time to try and find information. Given the topic, I believe that notability may or may not be met, but it's too soon to tell given the neglect. I'm not sure why you can't accept that other people have differing opinions. You're entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. You're welcome to disagree with me, but continuing to claim that my opinion is something that it is not is inappropriate. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is not that your opinion exists, but that you are failing to back it up with anything of substance, coupled with accusing me of making misrepresentations when I have done no such thing. (Again, I might ask you to assume good faith).

You have argued that it's "too soon" to determine notability on an article that has existed in this state since 2011. If over a decade is too soon, please advise a time frame which you believe is suitable. You may not be aware of this, but old, neglected articles are deleted with some regularity because it is discovered that sourcing does not exist.
You have argued that the AfD period is a short period in which to find information. AfDs are customarily listed for a week and this one has been open for two now.
You have twice now explicitly argued that sources must exist without actually providing any concrete direction as to where such sources might be.

These are not strong arguments for keeping this or any other article. The strongest argument you can provide is significant reliable sources. You are free to express your opinion, but you must understand that AfD is not simply a vote, it is a discussion - editors are free to refute your arguments if they are weak, as yours are. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your responses belie the weakness of your argument regarding your perspective in this discussion. If you felt that they were strong, you wouldn't continue to harass those with opinions different than yours and have confidence that the closing administrator would weigh your opinion accordingly on its own. I would also request that you refrain from using insults in regards to the opinions of others as well. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If calling an argument weak is an insult, you may want to strike "I feel your responses belie the weakness of your argument". Your pattern of accusing me of doing the precise thing you have just done continues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be closed as a no consensus, it's clear consensus cannot be found here given the atmosphere that has arisen. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whether under this title, or renamed under a different title, the topic of American football in Nigeria is clearly notable. Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not the topic of this article though. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I understand that this closure won't make anyone happy. But I don't find those advocating Keep or those who want Delete have strong policy grounding. I think the discussion occurring at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Lists of Repertoire/Compositions on Wikipedia should actually be turned into an official RFC which could provide guidance when articles like this one are nominated for a deletion discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flute repertoire[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of instrument repertoires. This article claims to try and "present a representative sampling of the most commonly played and well-known works in the genre", but Wikipedia's goal isn't to provide flautists with a list of what to play. It is supposed to present readers with an encyclopedic overview of the flute's use in the orchestra, something that can be achieved with a concise section on the Western concert flute article.

For the page navigation of flute music, Category:Compositions for flute will suffice rather than a crufty list that may contain only twenty or so actually notable pieces. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. The number of flute compositions is almost endless, we don't need to list as many as we possibly can. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic collection. Category:Compositions for flute is enough if anything related to this subject is necessary. >>> Extorc.talk 18:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mainly for the rationale that this article has existed on Wikipedia since 2006, providing value (according to pageview data) to perhaps 140,000 or more readers. "Why, I ask?", indeed. I'm not in favor of a "years to build, seconds to destroy" mindset on Wikipedia, especially if the subject is notable. Here Under The Oaks (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a page is old or even has a substantial viewer base does not mean it's worthy for an encyclopedia. (Although, I also disagree that 140,000 is a large number considering the age of the article and how it's linked from a Vital Article.) And certainly discussing flute repertoire and its popular, important pieces can be a wonderful addition to the project. I'm currently working on that as we speak with expanding the flute ensemble page. (And I would love to have help on that if you're interested!). However, discussing repertoire is best suited for prose rather than a listing of all pieces. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's quite cluttered, I agree, and whether or not it's notable is debatable. However, other orchestral instruments have their own repertoire page-some are lists, some are full articles. This should probably be discussed as a more broad change, instead of deleting these articles individually. Start a discussion on the Musical Instruments or Classical Music wikiprojects, maybe. Aven13 12:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aven13: I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Lists of Repertoire/Compositions on Wikipedia. Please join in the discussion! Why? I Ask (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep without prejudice - On one hand, Wikipedia is not IMSLP. On the other hand, I concur with the unnamed commenter above that this is really something that needs a wider discussion and AfD is not the best place to sort it out. De Guerre (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@De Guerre: I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Lists of Repertoire/Compositions on Wikipedia. Please join in the discussion! Why? I Ask (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree with the rationale "It is supposed to present readers with an encyclopedic overview of the flute's use in the orchestra", because the role of the flute in the orchestra would indeed be a bottomless list. Instead, this list shows pieces where the flute dominates, and why not? While I'd not write such a thing, I'm happy that it exists for those readers interested in such things even if they will be a minority. I see Jerome Kohl and Toccata quarta among the editors who guarantee that it's solid and not cruft. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that way, then please go vote on the WikiProject. And please, do not ever try and use deceased editors such as Jerome Kohl to support your rationale when they are not here to verify their opinions (and without a direct quote saying so). Why? I Ask (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the project page before you asked. Please check my talk for Jerome Kohl's name, or his talk archive, for that matter. I didn't say anything of opinion, just that the article wasn't only created by IPs but that those mentioned had an eye on it. Jerome Kohl added works, random example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While splitting non-needed hairs, I technically asked you before your post (16:09 versus 16:14). And even if you did show me the diff instead of just saying "check his talk page", it's still in bad taste Why? I Ask (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the project before I saw that you asked here, because I was out for rehearsal and saw it only now. Which diff? My motto of the year is In Freundschaft, after an article he began and I took to GA in memory of him. User talk:Gerda Arendt#DYK for Jerome Kohl: "I looked up to Jerome from the day he came in my life (in 2009, telling me that what a reliable source said about Stockhausen was wrong)". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to make a statement for someone not present, it's courtesy to provide proof (i.e., a diff) showing that they would agree. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but I only said that he watched this article (from 2011 to 2019), made corrections, removed items, and added pieces to it, which for me provides confidence in its content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Animal Baby Explorers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still does not meet WP:TVSERIES. The article was asked to be undeleted at WP:REFUND by 174.27.3.169, reversing the soft deletion. Despite this, issues found in the last AfD still persist. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Bearcat:, the nominator of the previous AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. Due to the lack of participation in the first discussion, I can't quibble with the refund itself — but the article as written is not showing or reliably sourcing any reason why it would pass WP:TVSHOW criteria for the notability of a television series, mere existence is not in and of itself enough, and the IP who requested the undeletion (a) didn't provide any actual reason why the deletion was improper, (b) didn't make any promise to improve the article in any way, and (c) got a 48-hour editblock later the same day for vandalism. Absolutely none of that is any sort of recipe for a keepworthy article. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources means no article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Brand Trust Report[edit]

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

Non-notable guide / award, fails WP:Notability. The only secondary coverage are press releases by the winning brands that of course say that it's a very prestigious award that they completely deserve, but these don't appear to be significant press releases or serious focuses of advertising; just standard daily churnalism. (This article from The Statesman is about as good as it gets, just copy-pastes a description of the methodology from the website, and is basically a thinly disguised advertisement to buy that year's guide. Other sources are even thinner.) There are essentially no non-primary sources that have significant coverage that dispassionately describe the award itself, the process, the company, whether winning the award is useful for advertising, etc. and a WP:BEFORE Google search has not turned up any unused sources. It is unlikely there are sources in other languages either - the yearly guide is published only in English, so I don't think untapped Hindi/Urdu/Bengali/etc. language coverage exists. There are a few passing mentions of the award in a few books - but we're not talking very prestigious books, rather random books of unclear sales/relevance from a Google Books search - but again no secondary coverage ([48], [49]) both merely cite the report on a single page, but don't describe it.) Doesn't seem close to satisfying WP:THREE even if you think that "The Statesmen" article (the closest to being a real article) counts as coverage. SnowFire (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not mentioning it in the nomination statement, but as a side note, the article is also written like an advertisement. AFD is not cleanup, etc., so that isn't a big deal, but I can't really blame the editors - if we honor the sources, it should be written like an advertisement, because that's what 90%+ of the cited sources are, corporate press releases filtered through the media. Pinging @Northamerica1000:, who made a good effort to find sources after removing a prod deletion proposal two weeks ago, but I'm not convinced that the added sources are enough. SnowFire (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about an annual market report, whose content and references are predominantly announcements of ranking listings for various firms, from which notability cannot be inherited here, also with links to the articles on the various firms. The article is doing no more than summarise the headline results of the various editions, without indicating how their collation is in itself notable. There are no articles on the TRA / Trust Research Advisory firm or its Comniscient Group parent which could provide WP:ATD targets; nor would TRA itself meet WP:NCORP if this article was reconstructed to be about the firm whose core work is producing this report. The research for this report appears to involve the Indian Statistical Institute in some way, but their involvement seems too remote for a redirect to the ISI page to be plausible. AllyD (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good!. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last Rites/Loved to Death[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG, ranking is not Billboard ranking but just some websites ranking Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SO? It is not only the first song on their first album, but also their first ever release in general (as a demo tape single/ep). It has more sources than songs like Sweating Bullets and The Conjuring, yet those still get pages. BoxxyBoy (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good!. This is a weird article that is trying to do two things at once. The first half of the article is about the song "Last Rites/Loved to Death", which is not notable outside its album. The song has been mentioned in a few books and magazines as one of the first-ever Megadeth songs, but that is not significant enough to get the song its own article here. Meanwhile, the second half of this article is about a completely different item, Megadeth's 1984 demo tape, which happens to include the song from the top half of the article. The demo tape is also not notable in its own right, both because all of its songs later appeared on the band's first real album, and the fact that the band had a demo tape is a historical tidbit that is already mentioned at their main article. In closing (finally), this AfD is about an article that is titled after a song, so the namespace should be redirected to the parent album in case anyone searches for it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and Doomsdayer. I'd also like to specifically note for @BoxxyBoy that the number of references doesn't matter, rather we're looking at the quality of those sources. In this case, "Sweating Bullets" would likely clear notability for its significant charting and could be expanded with quotes already present in the Countdown to Extinction album article. "The Conjuring", however, might not clear notability so thanks for pointing that one out. QuietHere (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to It's Showtime (Philippine TV program). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of It's Showtime segments[edit]

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

Subject WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete due to notability issues. Most of the references cited are from the program's parent company. Some of the cited independent aritcles (pep.ph) link to different news articles and the only link that works is about a PR from the program's parent company. --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It's Showtime (Philippine TV program) as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Some of the stuff may be in the main article. SBKSPP (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thomas Ott[edit]

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

My PROD No inherent notability in his role, a redirect to the 32nd wouldn't be due as he's not mentioned/it's not sourced. was declined (courtesy @Necrothesp: so we're here. While I did so before PROD, I've checked again and cannot identify sourcing that would confer notability. Thanks! Star Mississippi 02:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Wisconsin. Star Mississippi 02:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. Notability does not exist. Web check shows nothing that would count as a reliable source. Nothing in books or news either. Editors have had 12 years of the article being tagged for notability issues yet appropriate sources have not been produced. This is a clear case for deletion on notability grounds, verification also. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. It's been around this long and not much more of anything for a RS has turned up, telling me non-notable. I get a hit for someone in the National Guard (it appears to be him, it's more of a by-line) and phone book listings. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerator (software)[edit]

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

Borderline G11 and possible G12, though I can't find the source, just mirrors. Survived PROD (solely courtesy heads up @James500: as Walter Görlitz is indeffed) so bringing it here. Sourcing does not seem to be enough to standalone article. It existed, and isn't easy to search for, but doesn't appear to be a notable piece of software Star Mississippi 02:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Star Mississippi 02:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with the concerns raised above.--IndyNotes (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for lack of notable sources. I tried the google "search before" since notability is not lost but I couldn't find anything. Rlink2 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Park lots[edit]

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

The notability concern for this article was raised at User talk:Atsme/NPP training/VickKiang, I'm pinging Atsme. Ref 1 and 2 are clearly non-RS, one a blog and another a niche project. Ref 3, despite seemingly being non-RS, is from the University of Toronto, so it's an RS, but it mentions Park lots in a few sentences, along with a couple of other trivial mentions, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND also doesn't apply here. VickKiang (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could be a subsection in the John Graves Simcoe article; refs found are all for parking lots, like where motor vehicles are parked. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to lack of apparent notability. Would prefer to redirect this but where to?

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated in the discussion. It is non-notable land, offers no encyclopedic value, and as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP should not be used to document every global land transaction that ever occurred. Atsme 💬 📧 10:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable land, as described above.Vicozico13 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to York, Upper Canada#History, which already mentions this. BD2412 T 01:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Atsme is correct. Bruxton (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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