< April 14	April 16 >

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!} 01:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Chi (singer)[edit]

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

I've looked at the tags, and this article definitely does not meet WP:GNG. It is also very messy and may require cleanup if not deleted. JTZegers (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable at all. Fails WP:GNG. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 15:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of investments by Microsoft Corporation[edit]

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

This list is an outlier. There is no other article titled "List of investments by..." Most companies make a fantastical number of investments, since that it is the very nature of business. We oughtn't be in the business of tracking that business. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an abandoned draft. The attention paid to Microsoft's investment in OpenAI suggests this could be a topic of interest. But the current article is too incomplete to keep. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Major investments can be added to the main article, but not every single one. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LISTCRUFT. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The person who loves reading (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Beside violating WP:LIST, it's a WP:FORK of another list. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2023 (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 source analysis has remained unrebutted. Sandstein 07:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Wire & Cable[edit]

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

most of the references are self-sources as its submissions to regulators. Ebbedlila (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge if a suitable target can be found. Seems like a notable company but sparsely discussed in sources. Andre🚐 03:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you search deep you will find plenty of articles. I replaced some of the press releases and added these 1, 2 and 3. Kakara69 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and CORP.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Stock listing	Houston Wire & Cable Company, Inc Stock - Yahoo! Finance". Finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2014-02-17.
Routine business news	Seeking Alpha". seekingalpha.com. Retrieved 2023-04-09.
Listing, not IS RS with SIGCOV	3. ^ "2009 Best Small Companies Part 5". oldschoolvalue.com. 2009-11-30. Retrieved 2023-04-09.
Stock listing	4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Houston Wire & Cable Company Reuters.com". Reuters.com. Archived from the original on October 14, 2008. Retrieved 2014-02-17.
Stock listing	Houston Wire & Cable Company, Inc Stock - Yahoo! Finance". Finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2014-02-17.
Routine business news	6. ^ "Houston Wire & Cable Company Joins Affiliated Distributors - Yahoo! Finance". Finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2014-02-21.
Routine business news	7. ^ Jump up to:a b Smith, Eric (2021-03-25). "Houston Wire & Cable to Be Acquired for $91 Million". Modern Distribution Management. Retrieved 2023-04-09.
Annual report, primary	8. ^ Jump up to:a b "Houston Wire & Cable Co. Annual Report for 2012. Form 10-K - Annual report [Section 13 and 15(d), not S-K Item 405]". SEC.gov. 2013-03-18. Retrieved 2014-02-21.
Primary	9. ^ "Houston Wire & Cable Co. Official Website". houwire.com. Archived from the original on 2006-03-11. Retrieved 2014-02-21.
Routine business news	10. ^ "Houston Wire & Cable Company Opens A New Texas Distribution Center. Industrial Distribution". inddist.com. 2014-02-12. Retrieved 2014-02-21.
Routine business news	11. ^ "Houston Wire & Cable Selling Southern Wire Unit for $20M". Industrial Distribution. 2020-12-10. Retrieved 2023-04-09.

BEFORE showed more of the same, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 17:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Timothy's excellent analysis. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with TimothyBlue's source assessment. Routine coverage about business transactions and stock information, but not enough substantive content to suggest WP:CORPDEPTH is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:14, 19 April 2023 (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 The result was keep WP:SNOW‎ . (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. R. Morlan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Almost every source cited is either a primary source or an obituary, neither of which can be used to establish notability. The only secondary source cited contains only two sentences about the subject of this article; this is not significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). I can't find any examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This article was nominated for deletion before but was kept because one of her stories was included in an anthology that featured a number of notable writers; however, since Wikipedia does not recognize 'notability by association', this is not a reason to keep the article. It should also be noted that not every author featured in this anthology has a Wikipedia page. JMB1980 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A search found no reliable sources that show notability. The only obits that turned up were on blogs or in unknown pubs. Fails WP:GNG as notability has not been shown, and it does not pass WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Keep Changing !vote as notability is shown in obits and other reliable sources as noted by other editors. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plentiful coverage indicating notability, as noted in the overwhelming !vote at the previous AfD, and an article in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, not previously included, which I've added as an EL. PamD 09:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. Secondary sources are needed to prove notability. JMB1980 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia articles are based on primary or secondary sources. If based on primary sources, then the entry is a secondary source. If based on secondary sources, then it's proof of the existence of secondary sources. pburka (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then the Wikipedia page should cite some of these secondary sources.JMB1980 (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BLUDGEON. pburka (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMB1980, before you bring up any more AfDs you need to study Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In particular, the no original research policy states point blank that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." So yes, Wikipedia policy states that both secondary and tertiary sources can be used to establish notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USETERTIARY. It is, in fact, you who lacks knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. JMB1980 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USETERTIARY isn't a Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It's an essay. At the top of the essay it even says "This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." And then in the essay's first paragraph there's a link to the Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources policy I referenced above. I don't know what else to say if you can't tell the difference between an essay and actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS: 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources'. WP:GNG: '"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability'. Wikipedia clearly gives more weight to secondary sources. JMB1980 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one if arguing against secondary sources being preferred. However, tertiary sources can be used in articles and to prove notability. Also worth noting that almost all the sources shared below proving the subject's notability are secondary sources, including the entry about the subject in the St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers looks to be a tertiary source None of them appear to be secondary sources except for the ones that mention her in one or two sentences. JMB1980 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction entry by itself is enough to proveout her in St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers and Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors plus being a finalist for a major award and she way more than meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As a side note, I don't understand why this article was brought up for a second AfD only a year after the previous AfD had an overwhelming consensus for keep. --[[User:SouthernNigh notability per Wikipedia guidelines. However, I also found academic articles mentioning her work in Science Fiction Studies and reviews of her work in places like Publishers Weekly, Cemetery Dance, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Locus Magazine. Add in that there are biographies abts|SouthernNights]] (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What policy or guidelines says that obituaries don't count towards notability? pburka (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy and they absolutely do count towards notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't realize until now that JMB1980 created the original AfD on A. R. Morlan in March 2022 and, after that discussion achieved a nearly unanimous consensus to keep, created this AfD just over a year later. Yes, there is no clear Wikipedia policy against doing this (while speedy keep states an AfD can be closed if an editor makes "nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion," a year doesn't count as immediately). However, the same editor bringing an article up for AfD after it was overwhelming kept a year before strikes me as going against the spirit of AfD discussions.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the article was kept based almost entirely on a 'notability by association' argument, and more than a year later still didn't cite a single quality secondary source, a second nomination was warranted. JMB1980 (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The previous discussion was very clear with editors agreeing with the multiple reliable sources shared by Beccaynr that proved the subject's notability. That's why so many of the editors referenced the info shared by Beccaynr. Instead of listening to that clear consensus you brought this article up for a new AfD. Almost as if you were shopping around for a different outcome. That's not how the AfD process works.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then changes should have been made to the article to bring it into compliance with WP:GNG guidelines. JMB1980 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it states in Wikipedia guidelines, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Notability of an article's subject exists separate from the state of the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I haven't seen any examples of significant coverage in quality secondary sources, inside or outside of this article's citations. I've only seen primary sources, tertiary sources and reviews of an anthology that only include one or two sentences about her. JMB1980 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, almost all the sources I shared proving notability are secondary sources, including the reviews in Publishers Weekly, Cemetery Dance, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Locus Magazine and the entry about her in St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers. The Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors entry for the subject is a tertiary source but that can still be used in the article and to prove notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only Cemetery Dance page about her that I could find was a blog, Publisher's Weekly only had one sentence about her, I couldn't find anything for The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and she was published in Locus Magazne, meaning it isn't independent of the subject of the article. JMB1980 (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Locus Magazine is the leading criticism magazine of the SF/F genre and absolutely independent of the subject. She wasn't published in the magazine -- they published her obituary. With regards to your comment above about St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers, that entry contains "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources," as described under secondary sources at Wikipedia:No original research. That means it's a secondary source. Same with regards to Cemetery Dance, F&SF, and all the other citations people have shared. I am done discussing this with you b/c your level of misunderstanding everything everyone says is astounding.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines tertiary sources as 'publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources'; that seems to fit St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers. The Cemetery Dance was a blog post, and blogs aren't reliable sources. I still don't know what the F&SF source is. JMB1980 (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Profiles of the author in reliable encyclopedias and other sources (see per SouthernNights above) and also Supernatural literature of the world : an encyclopedia. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the last discussion. Encyclopedias and obituaries are, contrary to the nominator's view, perfectly acceptable sources and strong indicators of notability. pburka (talk)
Keep Her anthologies are published in major publications alongside notable authors and furthermore she won a major literary award. DanishGirIInheaven (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per SouthernNights, plenty of refs to show notability. // Timothy :: talk 17:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR.ResonantDis_tortion 05:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the fourth criteria of WP:NAUTHOR. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Some of her works has won significant critical attention. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2023 (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 Faith in the Future (Louis Tomlinson album). Sandstein 07:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faith in the Future World Tour[edit]

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

Contested redirect. Zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTOURS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Faith in the Future World Tour is a notable concert tour. It has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources of note, including: NME, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Music Week, and more. Twitter-only citations have been updated and replaced with better, more reliable sources.

Additionally, this tour is also noteworthy and unique for its size (number of shows) and reach (number of countries visited). For example, this tour will have shows in Bulgaria, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, and other countries which have historically not been included in international tours by pop artists. Lastly, this tour is also in support of the associated album, Faith in the Future, which reached #1 in the United Kingdom (out-selling Bruce Springsteen's new album). Nina369 (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Faith in the Future and add Tour section. Probably WP:NOTADVERT and WP:MILL, which sources are derived from announcements, unless theres reviews anywhere from secondary sources. So restore the redirect (for now), unless sources have been found.

2600:1700:9BF3:220:70D0:CCE8:8633:6A4F (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faith in the Future (Louis Tomlinson album) and add Tour section per above. // Timothy :: talk 17:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Education in Georgia (U.S. state). Sandstein 07:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission[edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence that this organization meets WP:NORG. There are approximately 100 news results that turn up in a search: every one that I have checked is a passing mention. This is the best source I've found so far, but it's far from enough. If a reasonable merge target can be found, I do not oppose a merger. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other references in the article that User:Vanamonde93 overlooked; specifically [1], [2] and [3] a comparison of responses from five states facing the problem of sudden institution closure. Many states do little or nothing to help their residents with this problem; Georgia has a comprehensive plan that seems to be working. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 23:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't overlook them; I skimmed the first two (all I can do before the paywall locks me out) but that's quite enough to see they're not substantive with respect to this topic. Similarly, the 47-page report that is the third link essentially states one fact about the GNPEC. There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV here. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article needs work to assert notability. I suggest the primary author point out exactly which articles are significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Unfortunately, I do not see them at this time. Flibirigit (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Education in Georgia (U.S. state): a substantially trimmed down and properly sourced version. Sources are not there for a stand alone article. This is an unneeded CFORK, the content will fit well in the target. // Timothy :: talk 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to WWE as well as Endeavor (company). The OTHERSTUFF arguments were given very little weight as was any snark about people not being "real fans". I considered the draftify arguments, but found that much of their worries would be satisfied by this being a section of the parent articles that is worked on and gets spun off in the future when there is more coverage. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition of WWE by Endeavor[edit]

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

Far too soon for this article, there is currently fewer than 10 sentences about the acquisition, this can clearly remain in the respective articles until a content fork is required All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Business, and Wrestling. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Objection/Comment: A precedent of Disney's purchase of the entertainment unit of 21st Century Fox, I recommend to retain the article to expand further. -174.89.100.11 (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, blank, redirect for now — Redirects are cheap, plausible search term, has potential for becoming a real article someday. Deletion would serve no purpose here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and rename to 'Merger' I agree this article has potential, but it's about a proposed merger, it hasn't even been approved yet. Nswix (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WWE - This article lacks potential to be a real article on its own, best merge it with WWE for now. Deleting this article altogether serves no purpose. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 10:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Precedent has been set by Disney's acquisition of Fox and its associated article. The article should be expanded and not deleted as there is more information about the merger/acquisition on the individual WWE, UFC, and Endeavour pages than in this article. The information adds to the unnecessary bloat found on the three other articles but would be beneficial if moved to this article. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is an argument to avoid. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability of this specific event is demonstrated through multiple major secondary sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's a good job I'm not arguing against the notability of it then isn't it, or I'd have egg all over my face right now. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha Stop trying to influence the opinion of others please, you act like a new fan and have zero respect for historic events like these. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha I took a second look, you are not disputing the notability I see, then ok I am sorry, your main concern is that its too soon but the process has been initiated and the deal finalized per corporate laws, and thus this historic article must stay. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WWE founded as WWWF in 1963 by Vince J, later bought by Vince K in 1982 had been run for 40 years under him 1982-2022. He made the company public in 1999 the same year I started watching. It is the largest professional wrestling organization in the world and UFC is the largest Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) organization in the world and a merger between these two Kingpins of combat sports is one of the most WP:Notable and is supported by numerous WP:RS and historic event ever in the history of wrestling, MMA and sports in general. This should definitely stay and be seen as a landmark in both Wrestling and MMA projects as well as corporate merger and acquisition, with Endeavor owning 51% shares, first time the McMahons have minority shares and now the means of operations are going to be different. This is highly significant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Best wishes all. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's all great, but this is still just a proposed merger. It hasn't been approved by anyone yet. Nswix (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The deal has been done and is set to be effective soon, there is no backing out of the commitment with Endeavor will pay $ 9.1 billion and becoming 51% of the shareholder. This is corporate law and there is no backing out, just because some people perceive it not being complete doesn't change anything, it is an unfolding event, and there is no backing out of the deal as per corporate law ans the process has been initiated and updates will continue to be added to the article. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What 'corporate law' are you talking about that supercedes the need for both shareholders of Endeavor and WWE need to vote to approve the deal and for regulators to sign-off on the merger? Nswix (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The process has already been initiated and will be finalized on the 2nd half this year, and there is no backing out and this is all supported by WP:RS and meets WP:Notable guidlines so it should be left alone, anyway i already gave my vote, best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has argued that there aren't sources or that it isn't notable. This comment is a massive waste of time. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the editor proposing this deletion put more effort into reading my words than planning a snarky comeback, they would see that I specified that there are sufficient sources (and, thus, sufficient content) for this specific event to have an article. As such, I'm saying that the proposal to keep the information in other articles is not the best path forward. This editor is pushing for deletion based on an essay. I'm pushing for inclusion based on GNG. If the editor prefer essays (although closing administrators won't find them as compelling), they could check out WP:POTENTIAL. Certainly, regardless of how the even turns out, the acquisition has already got significant mainstream coverage, with a reasonably certain guarantee of a significant amount of mainstream coverage to come. However, even in its current state, it more that meets the threshold for a stand-alone article. Further, I would suggest that a closing administrator might be wise to look at the conduct of the proposing editor and consider whether they are not here to build an encyclopedia, comparing their hostile editing style (both in their responses here and in their long-term conduct on Wikipedia) against WP:NOTHERE and paying particular attention to such items as "Treating editing as a battleground", "Little or no interest in working collaboratively", and "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention". Perhaps this will reveal that an indefinite block is long overdue. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pushing for deletion on the basis that there is simply not enough information to necessitate a content fork. If the editor questioning this had put more effort into reading 30 words he would understand this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In saying that, I also find proposals for a merge highly acceptable. How's that for working in collaboration. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough here to satisfy notability requirements. Although the merger isn't yet finalized, this is already an independently notable story regardless of what comes next.LM2000 (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's currently six paragraphs of information, three of which are two sentences or fewer in length. I'm not arguing whether it's notable enough for inclusion, so do you think this is enough information at present to warrant a content fork? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have a short one paragraph summary on the parent articles with a main article link to this one, as opposed to including this level of detail on the parent articles. A merge would not be the end of the world at this point but I think it would be pointless as eventually another article will created to detail further developments. I'm in the weak keep camp, my secondary choice would be to draftify.LM2000 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Endeavor_(company)#UFC–WWE_merger. Sure, this news event has enough coverage to pass GNG, but this coverage is also notability for Endeavor (company) and WWE. As most of this page is redundant background and redundant to Endeavor_(company)#UFC–WWE_merger, I see no reason for a duplicative page that per WP:NOPAGE does not need a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 17:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ItsKesha's main objection is that he finds this Wp:Too Soon, but thats his views, there are plenty of information and this meets WP:Notable,, WP:V, Wp:RS and all major encyclopedic guidelines. This is a historic event in not just WWE but pro wrestling in general, a merger with UFC might even bring irl shoot fight style wrestling in WWE similar to Brawl For All. The largest wrestling promotion being sold is historically significant and that is acknowledged throughout the pro wrestling world and deserves its own article. This article is as significant as Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney and has changed the wrestling event forfever. The corporate sale has been reached Endavour would hold 51% shares and higher voting power, it is a significant and historic change, please ItsKesha learn to respect history and also you did agree on the WP:Notability of this but just feel its too soon, but the deal is confirmed and the more things go the more they will be added in compliance with WP:RS and this is indeed a great encyclopedic material. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting your policies in a twist. As I've already pointed out to you; "[n]obody has argued that there aren't sources or that it isn't notable". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbaggg, I do not think these are good arguments for a deletion discussion. You've made your case repeatedly, there is no need to WP:BLUDGEON.LM2000 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2023 (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 . Star Mississippi 17:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra Narayan Sahoo[edit]

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

Bio of a postdoctoral researcher who does not meet WP:NPROF and isn’t notable. PRODed but PROD removed by article creator. Mccapra (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Israel, and India. Mccapra (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Reads like a CV. Aintabli (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for academic notability, no sign of other notability is apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the researcher's work in academic journals is impressive, it is self-published material with editorial oversight. Evidence of impact should involve scholarly articles, awards, or honors covering such research material that is independent of the subject. This article seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Multi7001 (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator had the right but no content-based justification for removing the PROD. gidonb (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a LinkedIn for scientists. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not significant enough yet. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2023 (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 . Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Texas dairy farm explosion[edit]

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

No indication that this is an encyclopedic event or anything more than a news story. Fails WP:NEVENTS, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NSUSTAINED. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - high casualty and unusual event - 3% of Texas' cattle wiped out in a single day in what is one of the deadliest animal-related incidents ever and the deadliest in a decade. It has widespread, sustained WP:RS coverage. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 18,000 deaths. Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there are threshold for number of animal deaths? LibStar (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. CT55555(talk) 13:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a very notable event, because of the very high death toll, which is the highest known for cattle from an incident that was not caused by a disease or stress. --Multituberculata (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that "death toll" is an argument about whether the subject is WP:INTERESTING and is not part of WP:GNG or WP:NEVENTS, and all arguments based on death toll should be disregarded when closing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If 3% of Texas’s human population was killed in an instant, it would make global news immediately. Also meets WP:THREE. 96.57.52.66 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would if it was 3% of human population, but this isn't the case. LibStar (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Unusually large livestock casualty event. This may be more of an "interesting" or "odd" event rather than a significantly notable event, which makes it a weak support for me. And I feel compelled to echo TheBigUglyAlien's comment as well - arguments purely noting the number of cows killed are not helpful for this discussion, and regardless of what one may think, 3% of Texas's cows being killed isn't anywhere near 3% of the people being killed. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems to pass WP:GNG. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just having sources isn't enough for GNG. It has to be outside of a single news cycle. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the GNG several times. At no point does GNG say that the coverage needs to be outside of a single news cycle. The only time coverage is mentioned in GNG is the following sentence: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." At no point does it say anything like what you claim it does. --Jayron 32 17:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep. Major event that was headline news and will lead to changes in law and practice in the industry. BD2412 T 00:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Will lead to changes in law and practice ". Isn't that WP:CRYSTAL? LibStar (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell, CRYSTAL applies to article content. So no. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS trumps GNG. The number of animal deaths is not relevant. What if it was 50 or 1000 cows? LibStar (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: Can you show me where, in policy, that WP:NOTNEWS overrules GNG. I'd like to know where that is written, so that I may adjust my thinking to be more in line with policy. --Jayron 32 14:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:NOTNEWS, not WP:NONEWS. If it passes GNG, then it is notable, done. Juxlos (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable incident. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this article about this exceptional notable incident that attracted coverage in reliable sources the world over. Meets WP:GNG. It is likely that academic papers and significant coverage in literature will exist in future. Sources that support the international reliable coverage:

Strong Delete Violates NOTNEWS, and most of the keep arguments here violate CRYSTALBALL. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NSUSTAINED is/was a valid concern that made notability murkier here, but in looking at the continuing coverage, it does satisfy WP:NEVENT. In reality, this article's creation probably should have waited a week or so in terms of WP:NOTNEWS, but that does not mean it should be deleted now. Looking at sources just from today since some time has passed, the largest cattle death toll in Texas history for an accident[4] and the country's largest such accident[5] is kind of a big deal in terms of NEVENT The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". The sources are already making that case. In terms of sustained coverage, agriculture sources are still covering this, so that alleviates initial SUSTAINED concerns I had when I first saw this AfD that had me on the fence. KoA (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (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 participated in the DRV, but not speaking to procedure so I think I'm fine to close this with a crystal clear consensus. Seasoning also applied. Star Mississippi 17:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nouns DAO[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nouns DAO

The subject of this article is a Decentralized Autonomous Organization or DAO, a kind of business venture on a blockchain. The purpose of the venture is to sell non-fungible tokens or NFTS representing nouns (that is, words identifying things) as digital art. The business concept is described on this web site: https://www.noundation.wtf/intro/nouns-cc0#nouns-flywheel which can be seen to be a self-inflating financial bubble. Since this is a business venture, the applicable notability guideline is corporate notability, and this article does not satisfy it, because none of the coverage is independent and significant.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	noundation.wtf	An "interesting" description of this venture, which seems to be a self-inflating bubble	No	Yes	N/A	No
2	finance.yahoo.com	Appears to be a press release about a Super Bowl ad	No	Yes	N/A	No
3	voguebusiness.com	Appears to be an ad to sell members-only access to features of an NFT venture	No	No, not without buying in.	N/A	No
4	animationmagazine.net	Announcement of a planned film, appears to be a press release	No	Not about the organization	Yes	No
5	businesswire.com	A description of the planned venture	~~Yes~~No	Yes	Yes	No
6	titan-comics.com	Announcement of the venture	No	Yes	Yes	No

An article was deleted after a deletion discussion on 3 April 2022: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nouns_DAO. This article was then created, and deleted as previously deleted, but the G4 was overturned and this article was restored. So this is a different article about the same business venture that still does not satisfy corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt at this point. No sources as shown above, and as explained last time. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of RIS. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP per the nominator's source table, which is actually rather generous. The businesswire.com source is a press release by another organisation which is collaborating with the subject, announcing that collaboration. It isn't independent of the subject. Hut 8.5 11:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete n’ salt per obvious. Chart says it all. Dronebogus (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per provide assessment and my searching. Skynxnex (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete fail of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, support salting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons listed above and more. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2023 (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 . Star Mississippi 17:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Excellence Awards[edit]

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

Fails NAWARDS, meets exclusionary criteria 3 and 6. The award is created by a marketing agency for seemingly promotional purposes only, and the basis for awarding process is unclear. Additionally, the major contributor has removed the paid editing and advert maintenance tags and has yet to address the UPE notice given. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 19:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and India. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 19:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Excellence Awards has successfully completed 3 editions and 4th edition is in process. Its an initiative by Brand Empower to honour and encourage artists, entrepreneurs and organisations for their outstanding work in their own respective fields.

On the website brandempower.org and globalexcellenceawards.org, process of nomination to selection has been already mentioned. There is no thing thats unclear.

On social media pages of brandempower, all the activities are getting published. Big media covering this award and big celebs attend this award.

This page has not been created for paid advertising, but solely to display awards received by popular celebs for their outstanding work. People are searching GEA awarding list on Google and this award has good significance and deserves to be on wikipedia. Shouryasbaghel (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions [6][7][8][9][10] suggest that you are working for Delhi-based companies named Webpulse Solution Pvt. Ltd and Brand Empower Pvt Ltd, the latter being the creator of this award. You have been given an undisclosed paid editing notice on your userpage which you have yet to address. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made a page on Hindi Wikipedia titled hi:राहुल रंजन सिंह (Rahul Ranjan Singh), the founder of both companies, suggesting you are in fact being paid to edit Wikipedia. I am doubtful of your claim that this page “has not been created for paid advertising”. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ManaliJain (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. In light of the above, this is G11 territory. // Timothy :: talk 18:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . Consensus was reached that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Khyle[edit]

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

Noah Khyle

Actor who does not appear to satisfy general notability or acting notability. There are two copies of this BLP, one in article space and one in draft space. The BLPPROD can be removed from the article, because it now has a reliable source, but the reliable source is a passing mention. The other reference is IMDB.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Newsweek	Episode summary with a passing mention of Noah Khyle	Yes	No. Passing mention.	Yes.	Yes.
2	IMDB	A database entry	Yes	No. A database entry.	No.	Sort of.

There is nothing in this stub that refers to significant coverage. The draft can be left in draft space, because the actor may satisfy acting notability in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgold79709 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A source has been added, so I am updating the source analysis table. The source is another passing mention.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Looper.com	Episode discussion, with a passing mention of Noah Kyle's character	Yes	No. Passing mention.	Probably	No.
2	Newsweek	Episode summary with a passing mention of Noah Khyle	Yes	No. Passing mention.	Yes.	Yes.
3	IMDB	A database entry	Yes	No. A database entry.	No.	Sort of.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and above source evaluation. // Timothy :: talk 18:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG - this is a BLP with three less than reliable sources. Even if arguendo you can argue that at least one of them is reliable, there s less than significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2023 (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. After the recent edits by BD2412 and the convincing arguments made that subject is encyclopedic and passes WP:GNG, I have decided to withdraw the nomination. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Francis Lott[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Much of the article is cited to a Burlington County Medical Society publication of which the subject was a member. The source lacks independence from the subject. The other sources are two publications on the History of Butte County in which his son was a prominent judge. The coverage in both is really more related to giving a biographical background of his son and he is not the main subject. In my opinion, none of these sources indicate that subject was independently notable from his son, and none rise to the level of in-depth independent significant coverage that we require to pass WP:SIGCOV. Further, his career as a physician doesn't appear to have been remarkable in any way. 4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: none of these sources indicate that subject was independently notable from his father, the subject's father is not even mentioned in the article. BD2412 T 18:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three sources are principally about his son, Charles Fayette Lott. I was commenting on the sources BD2412 not on the prose in the article. I meant to write son not father earlier, and have corrected the text accordingly. 4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have now added an easily found additional source that is principally about the subject and independent of them, and contains all of the information documented in the source you assert lacks independence, so you can withdraw this WP:BEFORE-lacking nomination. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider this one source with independent significant coverage. We need multiple sources with independent significant coverage to pass GNG. I am not persuaded.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 1918 source, while primarily on the son, has objectively extensive enough coverage of the father. BD2412 T 19:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is content in the sources on his son, but I wouldn't consider it significant coverage. By all accounts so far he seems to have been a rather ordinary physician with a rather ordinary life. There are many medical professionals, and many who have served in the military. What makes this particular person encyclopedic? What is his claim to notability? At this point the only thing I am seeing is the family connection with his son and the other Lott family members. Perhaps a larger article on the family, which seems to have been the topic of more sources, would be more appropriate rather than an individual article on this particular member of the Lott family?4meter4 (talk)

I would consider raising a cavalry company and directing a military medical facility during a fairly major early American war to suffice on its own. BD2412 T 21:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been busy adding sources and more content; particularly on his work in the military. Good work. I will take a look at it tomorrow, and get back to you. I am off wiki for the rest of today. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in any case. Nominating an article 29 minutes after its creation, and with an obvious absence of WP:BEFORE, is no way to build an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 19:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before I nominated the article, I did searches in google books, JSTOR, EBSCOE, and my university library search engine. It took me roughly 15 minutes to do a standard WP:BEFORE search as outlined in the guideline. It's not hard when you have access to a university library. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources that I found were found on Google Books, but it is difficult to effectively search for an individual who is likely to often be identified as just "Charles Lott", or even "Charles F. Lott". BD2412 T 20:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, different naming conventions can make searching more challenging. Having more people look for materials, which this AFD will accomplish, will ultimately benefit the article if it is kept. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Medicine, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the merits of the article, it is clearly not appropriate to nominate it for deletion 40 minutes after it was created, while it was still being written, in what appears to be a continuation of an editing dispute over the Charles Lott disambiguation page. In fact given the existence of the prior dispute I suspect the nominator learned of the article's existence when it was added to the disambiguation page, a mere seven minutes before it was nominated for deletion. (Either that or the nominator was stalking the creator's edits.) I suggest this AfD be closed. Hut 8.5 10:52, 16 April 2023 (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 The result was keep WP:SNOW‎ . (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Davidson (disambiguation)[edit]

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

No need for this disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. There are only two entries — the actress Amy Davidson and the journalist — and the hatnote atop the actress' entry states, "For the journalist, see Amy Davidson Sorkin." The only other dab page entry is a WP:DABMENTION for a state-level high school basketball player from 37 years ago — a single mention of such low notability as to preclude the need to force creation of a dab page. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 April 2023 (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/2023 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there were 3 entries which meet the criteria for inclusion at MOS:DABENTRY, so it is a valid page. I looked to see if there were missing entries, and there were, so I added those. I am not seeing any reference to policy in this nomination, and it doesn't appear that thew creator was informed, so you may wish to do that. Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to policy was indicated at the time of this nomination's posting as WP:ONEOTHER (i.e. one primary topic and one subsidiary topic). As for notifying the creator, I had visited this user's talk page and saw notice of an indefinite ban imposed over a year ago (including editing own talk page). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful disambiguation page that serves the interests of readers better than stuffing all of this information in a hatnote, or omitting potential useful information from being findable altogether. BD2412 T 00:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412, it serves a valid navigation function. // Timothy :: talk 18:43, 18 April 2023 (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 . Star Mississippi 17:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armoured fist[edit]

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

Procedural relist as an article that was PRODded twice, first in 2008 and then in 2023. The two rationales were:

Armoured fist is a symbol used by some armoured formations, but its notability is already reflected in those articles. It does not constitute a cavalry or an armoured doctrine or tactic despite the suggestion in the article
— User:Mrg3105 13:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Article has had no references since its creation 19 years ago. It is little more than a stub and not WP:NPOV
— User:LicenceToCrenellate 08:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure original research. Non-encyclopedic content, unsourced. // Timothy :: talk 19:11, 18 April 2023 (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 . Star Mississippi 17:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

János Fejes[edit]

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

Stats stub with no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Please note that Szabolcs Foci Info is about a different footballer to the one subject to this article as the article mentions him being 34 years old. Best I can find are Vasas FC, match report coverage, Eger SE, a Q&A with no independent analysis, and Jászberény, a transfer announcement written by his former employer. None of these meet the requirements of SPORTBASIC in terms of depth and none of these are reliable sites, in fact all our team sites and SPORTBASIC says team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject so such coverage cannot be used to claim notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO, BEFORE showed ROUTINE news, stats, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 13:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GeminiJets[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Ref 1 is not independent (interview), refs 2 through 4 are directly from the company's website (or archives of the site), ref 5 can be considered WP:ROUTINE as the COVID-19 pandemic affected many companies, not just this one. Uhai (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nevada. Uhai (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources in the article are IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed promo material. // Timothy :: talk 19:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the various sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:55, 18 April 2023 (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 Ansley, Warwickshire. Viable ATD. Preserves history should sufficient sourcing eventuate. Star Mississippi 17:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ansley Common[edit]

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

This page is heavily unsourced, from reading a lot of WP:original research, doesn't have any historical significance and also fails WP:Notability. I propose either a deletion of the article or it be merged as it has no real notability apart from on an OS map. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete From a US perspective this looks like a neighborhood, not a village unto itself. As a rule standards for neighborhoods are high and they need to be notable in their own right. At this point this place doesn't meet that. Mangoe (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I initially thought Mangoe may have been right, but actually this appears not to be the case. It has a council-erected nameboard, which simple neighbourhoods of other towns or villages do not have in the UK. This indicates recognition as a separate settlement and it is therefore notable per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ The source mentioned above It has a council-erected nameboard, is the strongest source for this subject and I trust Necrothesp did a complete BEFORE. Fails GNG and GEOLAND. // Timothy :: talk 03:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- My point is that this means it passes WP:GEOLAND! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I know and I agree its the strongest source for the subject which is why I !v Delete. // Timothy :: talk 10:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  But if it passes WP:GEOLAND it is notable! It doesn't need any further coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  according to 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. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." - so in this case, Ansley Common is far from notable and would as said be best covered in Nuneaton as a suburb. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ansley, Warwickshire. I don't see the council sign as being sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND. Ansley Common appears on Ordnance Survey mapping in the early 20th century as mining cottages associated with the nearby Ansley Hall Colliery. Current mapping shows it to be conjoined to Nuneaton in a ribbon development. However, it's officially in North Warwickshire Borough and part of Ansley civil parish as can be seen on the map download here.[11] Rupples (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. The map shows it's in the North Warwickshire ward of Arley and Whitacre, which covers Ansley. Rupples (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to Ansley Parish Council website which includes Ansley Common.[12] Rupples (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ansley, Warwickshire per above. Mentions the subject already. No sources for an standalone article, this is an unneeded CFORK. // Timothy :: talk 22:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ansley, Warwickshire because it is a suitable target where Ansley Common is mentioned. The source cited in the article is not enough to establish notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:29, 21 April 2023 (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 . Appears to meet GEOLAND per consensus. Content issues can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 17:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whitestone, Warwickshire[edit]

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

This page is heavily unsourced, from reading a lot of WP:original research, doesn't have any historical significance and also fails WP:Notability. I propose either a deletion of the article, it merged into Nuneaton or Attleborough or it deleted altogether. It doesn't seem to be like Hawkesbury Village proposal one as this place has no manor or early history. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, I don't think this can be deleted, despite there not being much to write about it. Per WP:GEOLAND, populated, legally-recognised places are presumed to be notable. The briefest of Google searches reveals that Whitestone has a surgery with that name, a post-office with that name, is regarded as a safe place by the Coventry Telegraph referring to it by that name[13] and is the name of a ward within Nuneaton with a very worthy and respectable-looking councillor. I would advocate removing all the OR content and reducing it to a stub including the geographical information, pending anyone finding anything useful that can be said about it based on sources, but since our North American colleagues would find it to be more than an uninhabited railway siding in Ohio, the article itself is a keep. Elemimele (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it’s a ward so probably passes WP:GEOLAND as well as being an OS settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: despite there being a lot of WP:OR and a lack of references in the article the subject passes WP:GEOLAND as it is a populated settlement. We can always remove any unsourced information that is unverifiable. We can also add some of the sources mentioned by Elemimele. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I rm the unsourced material per V. There are enough database records (not sourced from Wikipedia) to show this exists, but the question is if this legally recognized place? If it is legally recognized, it passes GEOLAND; if not it needs to pass GNG and it fails this. I do not see sources showing this is a legally recognized place, unless sources appear showing it is, ~~I !v Delete.~~ Sources found, !v Keep. // Timothy :: talk 03:55, 19 April 2023 (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 . Star Mississippi 17:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gwalior Engineering College[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NORG, in particular WP:ORGDEPTH. Youth4work is a blog post, Free-apply is just copied and pasted from this Wikipedia article and Careers360 is just another database page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone is able to show adequate sourcing in Hindi. Mccapra (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails GNG and ORG/CORP. Article is unsourced, BEFORE showed nothing but promo and primary. // Timothy :: talk 03:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the above two users mentioned, it needs adequate sources to be kept... Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2023 (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!} 06:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Southern Denmark (The Cosmo)[edit]

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

All of the external links/references on the page are dead and I have been unable to find suitable replacements. There appear to be no news stories about the school nor any suitable sources mentioning its closure. Uffda608 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google shows it as “permanently closed” and I’m not seeing any RIS that would indicate it was ever notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2023 (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 14:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gwalior Glory High School[edit]

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

I can't find any indication of notability. Best source I can find in my searches was CBSE School, which is not independent and fails to demonstrate any WP:ORGDEPTH. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Normal school. Fails GNG and ORG. BEFORE showed this is a normal school and has normal school news, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Himalaya International School[edit]

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

I can't find any sources satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH in my searches and current sources on the article fail WP:ORGIND as they are the institution's own website. Database listings in Uniapply and Justdial are the best sources that I can find, which prove existence but not notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DreamRimmer (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Normal school. Fails GNG and ORG. BEFORE showed this is a normal school and has normal school news, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 04:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anupallavi (TV series)[edit]

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

Tagged for years for improvement. Still zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it meets WP:GNG. Was BLAR'd by an IP, but then the redirect was contested, without improvement. So we are here. Searches did not turn up anything. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment odd that there’s no article in Tamil. Mccapra (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are shown in Tamil. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 06:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV. – Meena • 11:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It needs more adequate sources to be kept. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2023 (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 . Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holawaka[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Waaqeffanna, of which Oromo mythology is a sub-topic, or Somali mythology. I've seen the story of Holawaka attested in many secondary sources, but have seen not much analysis, so a merge seems the best solution to me. Daranios (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see a snippet from The Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia of Myths & Legends. If it contains enough commentary to expand the article beyond a stub, I am fine with keep, too. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick WP:BEFORE search brings up dozens of sources, way more than enough to demonstrate notability. Pladica (talk) 4:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BEFORE, in concurrence with Pladica. See in this list of snippets of books. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Based on the current sources. Happy to reconsider if more sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article needs development, but Bearian's BEFORE shows there is SIGCOV available in RS. // Timothy :: talk 04:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable mythological creature. The article requires expansion, not deletion. [14] can be used to expand the article.. 49.237.39.216 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST, sources have been provided by the AfD participants. Lightburst (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . Per comments from established editors Star Mississippi 17:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3Sun[edit]

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

No reliable sources in Italian of English websites, and no in-depth coverage. Appears it doesn't pass WP NCROP Edit.pdf (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Italian article at it:3Sun has some references that could be added here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There are no valid reasons to remove this page. The sources provided are relevant and independent, and the content and structure of the page adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. 3Sun is also significant both nationally and internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanPeschiani (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eliminated orphanization and added authoritative and independent sources IvanPeschiani (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of improvements to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :Keep I made some improvements on the Enel Green Power page and added a wikilink to 3sun. I also removed the orphan notice on the 3sun page and added more authoritative and independent sources, mainly in English and some in Italian. Do you have any other suggestions for what I should do next? Thanks. IvanPeschiani (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The account Edit.pdf, which proposed the page's removal, doesn't have the authority to post notices of deletion without providing legitimate reasons. This account isn't contributing directly to the encyclopedia, and instead is only destroying the work of others and resources that are useful to users. This page should remain active! Derylams (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Derylams that is not a valid AFD rationale. Your statements also aren't in accordance with Wikipedia's fifth pillar. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What I’m referring to is the 3Sun page, which is authoritative, well done and full of information and sources. 3Sun is also an international company of the highest level, a joint venture of companies at the top of the international energy sector. So I just wanted to reiterate that it’s not fair to ask for removals in this inappropriate and senseless way.185.108.105.233 (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article needs more ce cleanup, but it passes GNG. See [15], [16], [17], [18]. I stopped looking after I found these, none of them are perfect, but they pass GNG. // Timothy :: talk 04:58, 19 April 2023 (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 WP:SNOW‎ . (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Nirennold[edit]

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

Hi, my name is Victor Nirennold, and I am reaching out to request your assistance in deleting a Wikipedia page about myself that I did not create. While I appreciate the recognition, I believe that my notability does not warrant a Wikipedia page, and I kindly propose that the page be removed on those grounds.

As a retired professional football player who has transitioned to a completely different field, this page has been causing me more harm than good. Recruiters continue to bring up my past profession during job interviews, and unfortunately, they often hold onto various stereotypes. Despite trying to eliminate any trace of my prior career online, this page has been a persistent source of frustration.

I am kindly reaching out to you for your assistance in removing the page. Thank you in advance for your help. Robinho35 (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robinho35 (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and France. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to Soccerway, you joined a team a couple months ago and have played 8 games already, the most recent in mid-March. Anyways, I found [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], among many many more sources. Article may needs improvement, but not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - player played professionally for a long time in seven different countries and its not like deleting this page will cause no one to know hes a former pro footballer by googling his name. googling his name gives pages upon pages of results saying hes a pro footballer. in fact, his career seems to be on-going as of the fact he signed for Gloucester City two months ago and has since played 8 times during the last 2 months. its not like the page has a personal life section saying he did a bunch of crime or anything. theres no reason any employer would hate him for it and if he were to be applying for coaching roles playing in seven different countries would surely be quite the benefit. similar for other roles outside football really, working in so many countries seems like a benefit. also no proof hes the player in question...with a username named after robinhoMuur (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I understand you are right it will not fully disappear from the internet that I used to play pro football but it will already help me a lot as wikipedia is a main website and that is the first website that anybody would check for references.

My professional career is now already over I retired a year ago and Gloucester City is an amateur part-time football team where I play for leisure it should not even be mentioned on the page.

I'm now a software developer, I work in the IT field, and I'm sorry to disagree with you but this page has been nothing but deserving me, there is no benefit at all on me having my name mentioned on it, as it has been brought up to me several times by recruiters that I should delete this page if possible.

And to finish I am the player in question I can send you my ID's in private or whatever else you want to prove that it is me and makes the process easier. Robinho35 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

even if it is you as the actual player... i dont think wikipedia works that way? like, if donald trump came and was like delete my page cuz of all the controversies listed on his page hed get laughed at. he/you are a celeb that has played nearly 200 games professionally in 7 different countries. you/he was playing in the spl only a year ago. deleting this wont do anything, there are still the thousands of pages about you/him. also, playing for a semi pro team is still relevant. lots of players from the lower leagues go on loan there for example. some teams in that division are even pro. if you admit youre still playing for them, your playing career isnt actually even over. what are you even saying in these interviews, that you just magically spawned age the age of 32 you kinda have to bring up you played/play football for 20+ years? even if you dont bring it up, which you really should, a 5 second google will find you whether youre on wikipedia or not. wouldn't you have to disclose that youre still being paid to play football? if if this was deleted, google images will show your face playing football to anyone who puts your name in.Muur (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's also this bio from France Bleu [32]. Subject is more than notable for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is bizarre. I don't believe the editor is the person in question, as the player's LinkedIn profile specifically talks about his football career! Either Victor Nirennold is insane or someone is pretending to be him to get his article deleted for some bizarre reason. Regardless, subject is notable.08:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep, as definitely passes notability standards. --Mvqr (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would support deletion if the case were marginal in terms of notability but since Nirennold has significant coverage in numerous countries, I don't feel deletion would be appropriate. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above participants (esp. Muur; cf. the Streisand effect)--and wishing you and your next job pretty well! (Not every day the subject of an article--or a close connection thereof--actually gets to speak out.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The coverage linked above is generally routine/trivial, with the France Bleu article standing out as in-depth coverage. I'm skeptical that the nominator is the subject of the article; the editing pattern doesn't follow (e.g., why did they try to speedy delete another French footballer's article?). I'm on the fence about deletion, although perhaps there is something in addition to the France Bleu piece to suggest the GNG is met? Jogurney (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Hail[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was AfD'd by MaxnaCarta back in November, resulting in a soft delete due to only participation by two editors. However, the same issues still apply, so I am simply going to copypaste their nominating rationale, "Non-notable WWE wrestler. Article contains only two primary references, one is from the WWE, and the other is just a database profile. Per WP:NSPORT, wrestlers are classified as entertainers and not sportspeople. This WWE wrestler has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, TV shows, performances, or productions. Nor has she made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. There is also no significant coverage in any reliable, secondary sources. All sourcing I can find is linked directly to the sport of wrestling and routine in nature. There is no mention of this subject in any media not linked to her time at the WWE, and as wrestling is not a recognised sport for notability purposes, she fails both the applicable WP:ENTERTAINER criteria, and the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own rationale provided by nominator. To add to this, the author who recreated this previously deleted article has had countless other articles nominated for deletion per their talk page MaxnaCarta (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some coverage on Fox Sports [33], but most is related to the Rock's daughter, I think they wrestle as a team together. Nothing found for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Farnborough Airshow. ✗plicit 14:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farnborough International Airshow Radio[edit]

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

I can't see anything to suggest that this radio station, which has been on air periodically to provide commentary and visitor information for Farnborough Airshow, is independently notable beyond the event for which it is run. It seems like this radio station may be defunct (its website is unavailable) but suggest a merge of any information which can be properly sourced into the article about the airshow itself. Flip Format (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Aviation, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Not really notable in its own right, and it can be easily accommodated in the Farnborough International Airshow article (those parts that can be sourced, as currently none is). --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Subject fails for a stand alone article, is an unneeded CFORK which only serves to make readers chase links. // Timothy :: talk 07:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, although it doesn't look like much of it is referenced anyway and I suspect it will be difficult/impossible to source retrospectively - so in effect, delete. Waggers TALK 13:52, 21 April 2023 (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 Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. "Wait until there is significant news coverage" is the world upside down. If there are no sources now, then we cannot have an article now. Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season[edit]

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

Another contested redirect/draft without any in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Case of WP:TOOSOON, but draftify is no longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / restore redirect, TOOSOON as no SIGCOV yet. Spike 'em (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per User:Joseph2302 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023–24 S.S.C. Napoli season "Wait until there is significant news coverage of this season e.g. once the 2022-23 season has ended, and there's some actual fixtures, transfers to report." A pre-season fixture for the next season has been announced, therefore there is sourced information on this season and there is coverage on it. There are four different sources on the page, all valid to the article. The article is reliably sourced and is nothing on there is CRYSTALBALL or TOOSOON. Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the significant coverage? An announcement of a fixture is ROUTINE coverage, not significant. Spike 'em (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a complete misquote of what I said there, which is don't create articles WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's break down whether your suggested criteria have been met:
there is significant news coverage of this season No

the 2022-23 season has ended No

some actual fixtures Maybe An insignificant pre-season friendly, sourced only to the club website, doesn't count to me

transfers to report No

All of the sources used are from the club / the league it plays in, so cannot be used to establish notability. Spike 'em (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Mwiqdoh. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / restore redirect, Fails GNG and NSEASONS. Might be too soon, but not now. // Timothy :: talk 05:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect for now, too early. Giant Snowman 15:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect as per Spike's assessment above (based on one my comments at a previous AFD), the existence of one pre-season friendly match is not enough information to warrant an article this soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I prefer to keep the article, it was created too early, but whats the point in the faff when the article is needed. Other than that, talk about WP:BATTLEGROUND at [34], Spike 'em Careful mate! Govvy (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2023 (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 12:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Mims[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has had a long career as a producer and session musician, but he's one of those behind-the-scenes types who is clearly appreciated by his colleagues but never appears in anything beyond the list of credits for other people's works. There is simply not enough significant coverage to inform an article here. He was also briefly a member of the band Bonepony and could be redirected to them, but I'm not sure if that's a good idea because it was only a minor tidbit in his history and theirs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didmar Duro[edit]

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

In my searches, I found nothing better than stats sites, social media pages (e.g. Instagram) and Wikipedia mirrors. Best source I can find is Fortuna Regensburg, which is a blog with a passing mention of him and also non-independent due to being his employer. Looks like he fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO, BEFORE showed ROUTINE news articles and stats, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 12:26, 18 April 2023 (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 Georgian diaspora. ✗plicit 11:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgians in Spain[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE; provides a population statistic without any indication of importance. Small group in a country of 47 million. Wikipedia is not for every intersection of nationalities that exists on the planet. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Georgia (country), and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgian diaspora There are a lot of articles on ethnic groups in Spain, but others contain significantly more information about history of immigration, organisations, culture, etc. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: As opposed to the other Iberia, Georgians in this one are just not notable. No reliable sources seem to exist on this group, thus there is no significant coverage Curbon7 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2023 (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 the result was keep WP:SNOW‎ . (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher W. Shaw[edit]

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

Non-notable. There is no coverage about the subject other than being a PhD holder and author of three books. The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki. I undeleted the page while it was in draftspace. I would have moved it back to draft for possible expansion, but not doing it per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Jay 💬 10:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jay 💬 10:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is “The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki” a valid reason for deletion? I think the extensive reviews could justify an article for at least one of his books. Lack of mention demonstrates a gap in coverage on Wikipedia, not non-notability. Thriley (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki. This is a bizarre statement to try and claim non-notability by. Why would something have to be mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia or already have an article here in order to qualify for notability? Regardless, the reason why the reviews matter is because that's why the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR #3. And the article can be easily expanded with those reviews to discuss his career in making those books and why. Silver seren^C 17:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly even speedy keep for the straightforward WP:AUTHOR pass and the lack of an accurate deletion rationale. The article, as nominated, had more than sufficient reviews already cited to indicate that WP:AUTHOR was satisfied. The no coverage about the subject claim is either irrelevant or erroneous, take your pick: the coverage that matters for an author is coverage of their writing, not about their favorite ice-cream flavor. XOR'easter (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book reviews support that WP:NAUTHOR #3 is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reason for nomination is unclear, and he appears to meet N:AUTHOR to my reading. Star Mississippi 21:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author. the article needs organization. Lightburst (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Aït Kaci[edit]

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

According to the DZFoot link already in the article, he was only a very minor figure in Algerian football. No independent sources showing significant coverage are in the article and I could not find any in my searches in Latin script, Kabyle and Arabic (محمد آيت كاسي). No evidence of passing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO, BEFORE showed ROUTINE news articles and stats, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 12:37, 18 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 11:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liv Bredal[edit]

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

Fails entertainment guidelines with a single leading role in 1942 (Miss Nord). WP:NOT an IMDB mirror. The rest is a clear case of WP:INHERIT failure, with citations to a biographical dictionary and a who's who entry about her husband. There is also a newspaper article about the marriage, a trait about a person which does not bestow notability. The two remaining sources (Digitalarkivet) are census-related and are not significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Liv Bredal is mentioned in various other books (Film i Norge 1943, Norsk film gjennom 35 år, Norsk filmografi: 1908-1979, etc.) and the name appears 1,564 times in Norwegian newspaper articles. The article is already better sourced than many comparable articles, and additional sources could be added. Doremo (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can you post the best three sources from independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth so that editor can eval them? // Timothy :: talk 09:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Among the currently cited 10 sources, those would be "Liv Bredal blir bæring", "Liv Bredal er 23 år og forlovet", and "Da Liv Bredal ble Liv Caprino". In addition, 28 book sources, 24 magazine sources, and 1,564 newspaper sources are available altogether. The 1943 biography Liv Bredal by Reidar Lunde is a significant source, but it is not available electronically. Doremo (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 10:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When I first looked at this, I thought this was a good faith but poorly timed AfD; it was undersourced, but new and since then sources have been added. I still think it was a good faith AfD, but based on the author's sources above and in the article, their editing experience,[35] and their obvious language skill, I think this is a keep. Based on their clear and concise response, I trust that this author did the needed BEFORE and found the subject notable. If they had written a wall of text as often happens, I'd have passed on reading it, but they presented a (much appreciated) concise and direct response. If someone with the needed language skills can dispute the sources above, you’re are welcome to ping me; my first question will be if you have the language skills and access to evaluate the author’s response. // Timothy :: talk 08:18, 20 April 2023 (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 Green Party of Florida#Organization. ✗plicit 11:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Potts[edit]

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

BLP fails GNG and BIO. N claims seem to rest on founding Kids For Peace Joplin (no article). Sources in the article are not about the subject but about subjects they are associated with. Sources consist of mentions and interview quotes, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Florida, and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has no background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoggerelBanks (talk • contribs) 13:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a lead in. Is this the background information that was missing? Thanks! Pantherguin (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @DoggerelBanks and Pantherguin: Please note that comments on an AfD discussion should be posted below the header section of the AfD: I have WP:BOLDly moved your two comments to the proper place, above here, and given them the label "Comment". @Patherguin: Yes, you've made progress towards adding a lead (note that the article title, her name, should be in bold), but there are still no sources which support her notability. I note that even the FLorida Green Party page about her has nothing in her bio except her voting experiences, nothing which can contribute to her notability. Co-chair of a state-level party, supporting a possible presidential candidate who is a red link, just doesn't seem to add up to notability. PamD 15:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party of Florida#Organization where she is mentioned as co-chair — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 10:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no objection to Green Party of Florida#Organization redirect. // Timothy :: talk 03:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Party of Florida. Per nom, coverage of her seems to be passing mentions in sources about things she's involved with. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 11:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Passi[edit]

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

Advertisement of her organization Mashindia. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Starofearth (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and Delhi. Starofearth (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources seem to be good to pass, but I haven't done a thorough analysis. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's an advertisement for MASH, her org. Nominator has been indeffed for covert advertising (regarding Ohmium), but that seems completely unrelated to this. SWinxy (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 10:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources in the article that appear to establish significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besugo[edit]

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

Article created due to playing less than one minute in the professional second tier of Portugal before dropping down into the semi-pro and, later, amateur tiers. According to Correio dos Açores, which is a trivial mention only, he was playing in the amateur fifth tier Liga Meo Azores in 2019 and I can't find any more recent mention of Besugo. In my searches, including those in conjunction with clubs he played for as well as searching for "Hugo Sá Tavares", I could only find Sapo, another trivial mention. Most results were in relation to fish. Not enough for WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO, BEFORE showed ROUTINE news articles and stats, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 12:52, 18 April 2023 (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 and salt. Closing this early since deletion is over-determined as a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, which is repeatedly recreated by a blocked sock-farm. And WP:SNOW. Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yohan Poonawalla[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Article was a paste of declined Draft:Yohan Poonawalla, article creator blocked for advertising. I can't find any reliable, independent coverage of the man, just a lot of sponsored content about his wealth and his love of cars. Following deletion at the last AFD, all that seems to have happened to him is being awarded the "prestigious UJRA Awards 2022", whatever that might be. Article was salted in 2019 following repeated recreation by sockpuppets: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MediaTribe/Archive. Uncle Spock (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Uncle Spock (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt so we don’t waste any more time on this nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and first AfD. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - This article does not speak for itself and does not provide evidence of notability. In view of the repeated recreation of this article, including by sockpuppets, ECP create protection is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article creator has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of MediaTribe. Uncle Spock (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2023 (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 . $Salvio giuliano$ 10:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zane Pais[edit]

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

There's no evidence of notability in the sources on the internet, which mention Pais only in passing without any particular focus on him, or name him along with others in cast lists etc. He doesnt satisfy WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNGACTOR criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BoyTheKingCanDance. I am grateful for your help with the page. Its improvements are all thanks to your attention. As I hope you can see, Pais does satisfy all three criteria. He's been lauded in the New York Times ("at once irrepressible and oddly vulnerable"), interviewed by Playbill, podcast-profiled at BroadwayWorld. He's a leading actor in a forthcoming series based upon a best-selling and much-lauded work (Three Women), and made his debut as one of four leads in a movie (Margot at the Wedding) by one of the US's leading filmmakers, Noah Baumbach. In just the five days the page has been available—and so far as I can tell it does not yet feature in Google results—page views have averaged around 75 per day, with yesterday coming in at 87: that is, Pais is an actor about whom Wiki users are curious. I myself made the page after seeing his work in Margot: I was curious to follow the progress of such a talented young performer. With Three Women set to premiere this year, interest in Pais will only increase. I think the current incarnation of the page demonstrates his notability—and once again I appreciate your help with the entry. Zoidbergmd (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote retain. Zane Pais and his mother, Lisa Emery, from of TV series “Ozark” on Netflix, have made the professional jump between TV, Movies, and the New York Stage world, a notable achievement.

Like Julia Garner, also a Ozark alum, Zane Pais has starred in the New York Times/Amazon Studios series Modern Love. Other stars have featured Tina Fey, Dev Patel, Catherine Keener, Julia Garner, Andrew Scott, Anne Hathaway, Anna Paquin … TraceyHechler (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BLP, fails GNG and BIO. source eval:

Comments	Source
Not SIGCOV, "12-year-old Zane Pais, son of actors Josh Pais and Lisa Emery)"	1. Chris Knight, "Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves," National Post, November 23, 2007. "The film opens on a train, which Margot (Nicole Kidman) and her androgynous son, Claude (12-year-old Zane Pais, son of actors Josh Pais and Lisa Emery), are taking to visit her sister Pauline."
Not SIGCOV, "She lives with their son, Zane, 10, in the East Village."	2. ^ McCarter, Jeremy (31 January 2006). "THEATER; A Working Stiff, With Style". The New York Times. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
Not SIGCOV, "Zane Pais ... makes his acting debut as the preadolescent Claude, who accompanies Margot to the wedding of her estranged sister and sometime best friend, Pauline"	3. ^ Vanessa Lawrence, "The Good Son," Women's Wear Daily, November 6, 2007. "Zane Pais ... makes his acting debut as the preadolescent Claude, who accompanies Margot to the wedding of her estranged sister and sometime best friend, Pauline."
Mentioned in a list of actors, not SIGCOV	4. ^ Scott, A.O. (February 7, 2023). "Dearly Beloved, We Are Gathered Here Today to Rend One Another Apart". The New York Times. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
Promo	5. ^ Rabinowitz, Chloe (January 20, 2023). "'Jessica Hecht, Ben Edelman & Zane Pais to Star in World Premiere of Sarah Ruhl's LETTERS FROM MAX". Broadway World. Retrieved March 30, 2023.
No info on subject. Fails V	6. ^ Goldberg, Lesley (February 7, 2023). "'Three Women,' Starring Shailene Woodley, Finds New Home at Starz (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 30, 2023.
Not SIGCOV, "starring Zane Pais and Marquis Rodriguez, about a second date that takes a tragic turn."	7. ^ Jones, Daniel (July 15, 2021). "'Modern Love' Season 2 Is Here. So Where Are the Original Essayists Now?". The New York Times. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
Listed with cast, no SIGCOV	8. ^ Felperin, Leslie (March 20, 2023). "'This Closeness' Review: A Couple and Their Airbnb Host Get Acquainted in an Astute Dramedy of Awkwardness". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
Two sentences about a character in a performance	9. ^ Collins-Hughes, Laura (February 28, 2023). "'Letters From Max' Is a Sacrament of Grief, and a Comedy". The New York Times. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
One sentence about a character in a performance	10. ^ Hofler, Richard (March 3, 2020). "'The Perplexed' Theater Review: Why the Really Rich Don't Really Deserve America". The Wrap. Retrieved April 3, 2023.

BEFORE showed more mentions and listings, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 12:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Timothy's evaluation of the sources. My own search also shows only routine coverage, not significant coverage. Wikipedia does not host articles about the next big thing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2023 (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 . Sourcing exists to verify he meets N:POL, which is sufficient. Non-English sources are likely to exist Star Mississippi 13:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seyyed Mohammad Saeedi[edit]

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

Fails general notability. Cleric that has done nothing except being a cleric (which does not automatically make the subject notable). JoseJan89 (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, and has zero notability apart from being a cleric. ImperialMajority (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Prominent cleric, public figure and mouthpiece of the regime in Qom, Iran's religious epicentre. Most recently featured prominently in the Iranian government's Covid misinformation: Iranian cleric blames Trump for coronavirus outbreak in Qom. Jerusalem Post. Here's another mention in MEMO: Iran cleric encourages visitors to Qom religious sites, despite coronavirus fears. And the WSJ: Pilgrims to Muslim Holy Sites Risk Spreading Coronavirus. Searching for just Mohammad Saeedi (without the honorific, which shouldn't be in the title anyway, while also specifying "cleric" to avoid confusion with the other Mohammad Saeedi) aids the process. There are more mentions in local news, including for other name variations. Here's a Tehran times piece using Ayatollah Saeedi. A search for his name in Farsi meanwhile shows nearly 4,000 hits - a significant volume. Looking at the coverage across all of the variants, I would suggest that WP:GNG does apply. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Mccapra's additions below, it would appear that WP:NPOL also clearly applies. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions as a cleric spokesperson does not make someone notable. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Talking head for the regime, no coverage outside of his "speeches". Nothing found for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear NPOL pass as an elected member of the Assembly of Experts. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: there aren't any sources that confirm Saeedi is part of Assembly of Experts (Saeedi also is not mentioned in that article for this reason). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s the official website of the Assembly of Experts, showing him as a member, and an official news agency announcing his successful election. Also he is listed as a member for Qom at List of members in the Fifth Term of the Council of Experts. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Mccapra sources above. I don't doubt there are plenty of non-English sources. // Timothy :: talk 12:34, 19 April 2023 (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 . $Salvio giuliano$ 10:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Raihan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only for winning a student educational competition. This is not "inherently" notable enough to clinch inclusion in Wikipedia if it's all that can actually be said about him, and just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than a person who has earned a permanent place in an international encyclopedia -- and furthermore, Wikipedia has a rule that due to the potential of a Wikipedia article to cause harm (e.g. becoming a magnet for vandalism or attack editing), we have to be especially vigilant and strict about the notability of minors. So winning a student-level contest just isn't grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:BIO1E and concerns about the notability of minors. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that WP:BIO1E applies. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meets WP:BIO1E. // Timothy :: talk 09:12, 20 April 2023 (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!} 06:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etix[edit]

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

References on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Some announcements, CEO interviews, etc., but nothing significant. CNMall41 (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article, which raised concerns still visible on the Talk page. Searches confirm this as a company going about its business, dealing with event ticketing, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. (Also worth distinguishing the distinct Etix Everywhere data management company.) AllyD (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources on page are either self-published or carry little to no mention of the company itself, can't find anything significant online. Tollens (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mentions of a data centre, the CEO returning and the like, it's all PR stuff that's found in Gsearch. Nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2023 (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 . $Salvio giuliano$ 10:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matiur Rahman (army officer)[edit]

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

BIO1E per article. No objection to a redirect to Assassination of Ziaur Rahman#Executed officers. Most of the article is about the event, and the event article covers it well. I don't see any sourced info worth a merge, but if someone sees material, I don't object to it (text added 01:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)). A best this is a completely unneed CFORK. // Timothy :: talk 00:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Military, and Bangladesh. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- He was one of the main assassins in the Assassination of Ziaur Rahman#Executed officers. He shot and killed the President of Bangladesh, so his role is significant per WP:BIO1E but sourcing leaves much to be desired. I would also be okay with a Merge.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything, but no objection to merging sourced content if someone wishes to. All I ask is that the merged material improve the target, not just be dropped in. // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Please take a look at the sources before closing.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Assassination of Ziaur Rahman per WP:ONEEVENT. I've also nominated Shah Mohammad Fazle Hossain, another assassin, for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no objection to a Redirect to Assassination of Ziaur Rahman. // Timothy :: talk 12:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Matiur Rahman is notable only for assassinating President Ziaur Rahman, but WP:ONEEVENT doesn't say we shouldn't have a stand alone article about someone notable for only one event, it says we should consider how significant the event was, and how substantial their role in it was. The assassination was a highly significant event within the history of Bangladesh. The evidence that Matiur Rahman's role in it was substantial is shown by reliable sources, which say things like: "Lt.Col. Matiur Rahman and Lt.Col. Mahboob - the two officers who played a vital role in the operation at the Circuit House where Zia was killed", "Lt Col Motiur Rahman ... one of the main actors on the anti-Zia team", "Col. Matiur Rahman and Lt. Col. Mahbub, who were allegedly among the coup leaders".

Not only is he one of only 2-3 of the dozen or more conspirators that historical scholarship bothers to highlight by name, those sources go into a bit of detail about his background, motivation, and actions in planning the event. His biography is understandably truncated, since he was in turn killed three days after the assassination, but it is not a permastub, pseudo-biography, or a mere rehash of Assassination of Ziaur Rahman. Indeed, it is much better sourced and written than that article, and should not simply be redirected away. I've added to his biography's talk page several reliable sources (particularly the book by Moudud Ahmed) that could be used to improve the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is interesting that WP:BLP1E gives three criteria, all must be met, and the third one is about someone's role in an event, and the specific example given is an assassination! John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.. So if one of the three criteria are not met, then BLP1E guides us to keep. CT55555(talk) 01:20, 22 April 2023 (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!} 06:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LG Tromm[edit]

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

I don't see this being a notable topic. It's written like an advertisement. There are very few sources online that references the Tromm brand. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 04:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - incredibly specific, promotional, and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. While there are news articles referenced, they appear to be about the fact that LG and Samsung entered the same market at the same time, rather than being directly about this line of washers/dryers. Tollens (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2023 (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 . Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 13:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Hancher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Very few sources available, and the ones that do exist are pretty trivial coverage. She's certainly not notable for riding a horse in water, yet that is one of the higher-quality sources available here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and Popular culture. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see what would make her pass WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little coverage in RS, most of it's fluff. I don't see that she's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed and the like, she makes money, that's about all this says about her [36]. There are no stories about her as a person, discussing her at length. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete BLP, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Overall, none of the films mentioned and claimed that she worked is notable or can be verified.Khorang 17:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seventeen (American magazine) gives her significant coverage at: https://www.seventeen.com/celebrity/a31960552/who-is-kristen-hancher/ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Insider_culture confirms the article at https://www.insider.com/kristen-hancher-instagram-canada-visa-expired-deported-youtube-team-10-2020-3 counts as a reliable source, and that gives her significant coverage. The general notability has guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 14:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:SIGCOV it appears to have been some sort of paid promotion for her web series, and is by no means neutral. Overall there is not enough coverage to warrant a wikipedia page for this person. --Pamelawharmby (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though there's also a Teen Vogue short piece on her, I don't think that all of these together are quiiite enough to pass the bar. SWinxy (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see some assessment of the sources Dream Focus brought into the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BLP, fails GNG and BIO. source eval:

Comments	Source
Inteview, "and she told us all about the funniest moment on set"	1. Hallett, Stephanie (June 27, 2017). "Musical.ly superstar Kristen Hancher has a new show, and she told us all about the funniest moment on set". Yahoo! News. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
I think this meets SIGCOV, mainstream mag, author is Tamara Fuentes is(or was) the current Entertainment Editor at Cosmopolitan	2. ^ Jump up to:a b Fuentes, Tamara (April 1, 2020). "Everything You Need to Know About Kristen Hancher". Seventeen.com. Retrieved January 22, 2021.
Interview	3. ^ Tenbarge, Kat. "An influencer whose visa expired threatened to 'sneak into the US' or marry someone for a green card in a livestream, saying 'I'll risk getting banned for 10 years'". Insider. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
Not great, but something like SIGCOV	4. ^ "A YouTuber Is Defending A Photo Of Herself Riding A Horse In Water After She Was Accused Of Endangering The Animal". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
IMDB	5. ^ "Kristen Hancher". IMDb. Retrieved June 8, 2020.
Mentioned in list of names, not SIGCOV	6. ^ Takeda, Allison (August 1, 2016). "Teen Choice Awards 2016: All the nominees and winners!". US Magazine. Retrieved July 18, 2019.
Dup of above	7. ^ Vulpo, Mike (August 13, 2017). "Teen Choice Awards 2017 Winners: The Complete List". E! News. Retrieved July 18, 2019.
ROUTINE entertainment news about signing a contract	8. ^ N'Duka, Amanda (September 28, 2017). "Paradigm Signs Social Media Influencer Kristen Hancher". Deadline. Retrieved January 23, 2021.

BEFORE showed more mentions and listings, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 12:50, 19 April 2023 (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 . There is no clear consensus between keep and merge here, however a consensus to delete is not on the table and therefore a merger discussion can continue on the talk pages. Star Mississippi 13:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nemglan (Gaelic God)[edit]

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

FAILS GNG. Two sources in the article are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed mentions, but nothing with SIGCOV. No objection to a redirect to Conaire Mor. // Timothy :: talk 01:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Ireland. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (as AtD and per nom) redirect to Conaire Mór. Of the sources in the stub, only one even mentions the subject by name. The other describes the subject as an 'indistinct figure in Celtic myth'. Hardly a ringing endorsement. As per the nom, my own WP:BEFORE throws up a few sources where the mythical (fictional) character is mentioned - but only in passing and always in association with Conaire Mór or Mess Búachalla. And often, at that, not even by name. A redirect to a related character or topic would be in keeping with related convention for fictional characters (as discussed in the WP:NFICT essay). Guliolopez (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, a WP:BEFORE search shows a lot of hits. Many of them only give a short description. But e.g. The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore, p. 354, and Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology, p. 246, each have a paragraph directly on the deity. So by no means a mention in passing. As Wikipedia aims to be a general and specialized encyclopedia, if these specialized encyclopedias have an entry on Nemglan, so should we. Granted, neither of those is very long, and the second is partially based on the first, but they still already allow is to write a short, reliably sourced article. But we can actually write more: Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, p. 75, has some commentary how Nemglan relates to kingship. "Shades of Arthur: The Irish Legend of Conaire" comments on the name Nemglan and the relationship of the figure to older Greek deities, as does Heroic Saga and Classical Epic in Medieval Ireland. "Shades of Arthur" also tells us "For a further discussion on the figure of Nemglan, see Tom Sjöblom, “Advice from a Birdman: Ritual Injunctions and Royal Instructions in TBDD” (1996)." So while I could not access that myself, an academic paper tells us that there is more in-depth discussion still. And these were just a small selection which I have actually looked at. Daranios (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: @TimothyBlue: I have now supported things with what I assume are reliable secondary sources, which I think solves your first objection. I hope listing all those sources above solves the second. What do you think? Daranios (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Conaire Mór. Firstly, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this figure was a god of the ancient Irish. Secondly, he only appears briefly in the tale of Conaire Mór's birth in Togail Bruidne Dá Derga. That article could and should be expanded a great deal, with sections about its themes and characters. Mess Búachalla could also be merged into Conaire Mór. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Asarlaí: At least some secondary sources like this paper or The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore call Nemglan a god (perhaps in a wide interpretation of "otherwordly figure"?), so I think the article should contain that. I don't think this needs to be in the title, though. I think we should move this to Nemglan to reflect that the figure is not always recognized as a god, and because it's simpler, and because there is no more prominent topic of the same name. Daranios (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Conaire Mór. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was hoping to see some assessment of the sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Conaire Mór. Spleodrach (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A WP:BEFORE search is more than enough to demonstrate notability. Pladica (talk) 4:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I see no conensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nom, I think Merge with Conaire Mór a good AtD. // Timothy :: talk 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To note admin, TimothyBlue is nominator. She (never 'he') wants to vote twice even titled as 'comment'. 49.237.39.216 (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Clearly notable god and rename to Nemglan. A quick WP:BEFORE search brings up dozens of sources [37], way more than enough to demonstrate notability. His single entry can be found at The Celtic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology and many more. Why people are using AfD as a weapon? 49.237.39.216 (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Sources that support that view follow:

O'Connor, R. (2013). The Destruction of Da Derga's Hostel: Kingship and Narrative Artistry in a Mediaeval Irish Saga. United Kingdom: OUP Oxford. (28 mentions over 9 pages, no question this is significant coverage)
Mountain, H. (1998). The Celtic Encyclopedia. United States: Universal Publishers. (half a page, debatable, but I'd call it significant coverage)
Bane, T. (2013). Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology. United States: McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. (only a paragraph, but I think enough to bolster notability)

Plus a lot of mentions in Google Books. Weak because only one of the sources above is unquestionably SIGCOV. CT55555(talk) 01:29, 22 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 11:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Cup (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability standards (WP:BAND or WP:GNG). The most noteworthy coverage the group has received is the interview in V Magazine. The rest of the sources are student and community newspapers that probably do not meet the reliable sources bar. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the creator, I'd personally disagree. The coverage in V Magazine, their entry in the SLC public library, and coverage in local papers meets WP:SIGCOV in my eyes (criteria 1 of WP:BAND). I get that the bar must be high, but I caution from putting it too high. WP:RS doesn't exclude local sources (or even university articles, with the caveat of WP:BAND criteria 1), just says that you must verify a level of editorial standards. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 23:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Utah. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support keeping it as there is enough news coverage to meet notability. Pershkoviski (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. A relatively obscure band that doesn't meet notability standards; though the amount of coverage included in the article does seem decent, and therefore the reason for my "weak" !vote. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is filled with promo spam, including:

7. ^ ""Aquafeed.com | Silver Cup becomes Skretting US"". www.aquafeed.com. Archived from the original on 2023-03-24. Retrieved 2023-03-24."
"Gene Expression Changes Related to Endocrine Function and Decline in Reproduction in Fathead Minnow" Spam ref >> 9. ^ Klaper, Rebecca; Rees, Christopher B.; Drevnick, Paul; Weber, Daniel; Sandheinrich, Mark; Carvan, Michael J. (2006). "Gene Expression Changes Related to Endocrine Function and Decline in Reproduction in Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) after Dietary Methylmercury Exposure". Environmental Health Perspectives. 114 (9): 1337–1343. doi:10.1289/ehp.8786. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 1570078. PMID 16966085.

but these three sources:

13. ^ "LDS singer David Archuleta tells LGBTQ youths at LoveLoud Festival: 'It's a beautiful thing to be queer'". The Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13.
10. ^ Jump up to:a b Fuller, Whit. "Silver Cup's Debut EP is a Dreamy Reflection". The Daily Utah Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Family Band Silver Cup Talks Musical Inspirations and Growing Up in Utah". V Magazine. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13.

Show some level of notability. #4 is partly interview, but there is some independent content.

Article needs cleanup, but I suspect there are more sources to go with the three above. // Timothy :: talk 04:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Torchwood episodes#Series 1 (2006–07). ✗plicit 11:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Combat (Torchwood)[edit]

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

Appears to fail notability, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2011.

PROD removed with "deprod; every Torchwood episode has an article", which is untrue. At least one other episode from Series 1 does not have an article, and none of Series 3 have articles. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep argument. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not a valid keep argument, but it's a valid argument against prodding, which is only for uncontroversial deletion. Something which many editors seem to fail to understand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find it dumb that so many series seem to have an unwritten rule that every episode must have an article. Besides The Simpsons, I see no series in which every episode is notable enough for its own article (and even The Simpsons is stretching it). Anyways, rant over, if it's been tagged for so long and nobody found sources, then it should usually be deleted. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LilianaUwU. We simply don't need to over-represent series such as this just because they are disproportionately popular with a particular demographic that tends to contribute to Wikipedia more heavily. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Echoing what Liliana said, not every episode of a TV show would have an article, only the ones that are notable. SWinxy (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we redirect this to the pertinent season of the show? That is typically done with PROD'd articles but I don't see anyone mention it here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I support a redirect. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I would suggest redirecting to List of Torchwood episodes as is the case with the other series one episode not to have an article - They Keep Killing Suzie. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2023 (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!} 06:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artisan Furniture[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. Sources are a combination of primary sources, WP:FORBESCON pieces and advertorials. KH-1 (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen#Artisan Furniture - I'm not even sure if this would qualify for being the primary topic for the name. I did a google search, and its website was buried in the results, even when I tried to specify the location and all. Most of the refs are are either self-published or from Furniture News, with the Forbes references consisting of a collage of articles and a WP:FORBESCON violation. Additionally, the article creator @Bas009 has repeatedly been accused of WP:COI editing in the past (see User talk:Bas009), and given that he didn't bold the company's name in the lead but instead hyperlinked it to it's website, I highly suspect this to be a paid article creation. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 01:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your response, whilst I can confirm I’m not financially remunerated by this and, as said before, have an interest in the British-Indian space, I understand this fails to be notable enough and I have a better understanding of sourcing now. Thanks for providing your reasons! Bas009 (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Rajasthan, and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say redirect but the only references I find are reprinted or rewritten press releases. Nothing reliable about him launching this collection. His page has this referenced to the Artisan Furniture website so would recommend removing it from that page altogether.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a firm verifiably going about its business, but supported by announcement-based advertorial coverage (e.g. the several Furniture News / Furniture Today items). Searches find listings of the firm's goods, as well as broader discussion of "artisan furniture" as a term of art. For the latter reason, I think redirecting to the LL-B article would be inappropriate, and I don't think there is enough for WP:NCORP here. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly generic dropshipper with an utterly generic name shipping utterly generic furniture. Nate • (chatter) 19:48, 15 April 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Mortale[edit]

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

Not a notable band. Sources are all primary, and the band has sold under 1000 albums in 30 years. Very Average Editor (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Denmark. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2023 (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 Will Ferrell. ✗plicit 11:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Ferrell[edit]

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

Being the named son of someone famous does not create notability, and almost all of the articles in the citations focus on the father, not the son, who is somewhat incidental. Maybe the son will become independently notable, but this hasn't happened yet. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and ~~United States of America~~. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not a !vote, but Will Ferrell is a (kinda obvious) redirect target should there be no consensus to keep. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Will Ferrell. The above suggestion seems like a good AtD. Fails BLP, GNG and BIO, article and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed promo, but not SIGCOV for a BLP. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 14:24, 20 April 2023 (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghoda[edit]

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

A film that does not seem to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Although the article seems to have a copious amount of sources movie trailer related. Searching for turned up no critical reviews AShiv1212 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Maharashtra. AShiv1212 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2023 (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 . Nomination went from "it didn't exist" to "even if it existed, info is unsourced". We have input indicating it did exist, which solves the core issue. Unsourced content can be dealt with through the usual channels. Star Mississippi 13:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajuran Sultanate[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. There is no academic or contemporary evidence that this "empire" ever existed. Ajuran is nothing more then a nomadic clan that was at the head of a tribal confederation which controlled much of the Shebelle region in southern Somalia.[38][39][40][41] Mogadishu was never ruled by this "Ajuran Empire" it was ruled by a dynasty of local Somalis who were also related to the Ajuran clan called the Muzaffarids. Sometime around the 16th century the city would fall under Ottoman suzerainty and later under Portuguese and then Omani control.[42]. The Somali cities of Merca, Mogadishu, Barawa were apart of the Swahili city states that were independent and distinct from one other similar to Pate, Mombasa and others.[43], [44], [45]. The Portuguese who sacked the cities of Mogadishu and Barawa never wrote about the existence of a Ajuran state and describe them as being separate entities محرر البوق (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Somalia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AfD nomination rather seems like a gush of POV. A search of Ajuran Sultanate gives us many books from well-known publishers. We need quite a bit of authoritative sources that present this as fake news to delete this article. Since there is a clan called Ajuran according to what you put here, a page move would be more appropriate; lack of WP:N is out of question. Aintabli (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aintabli you stated that there needed to be more authoritative sources so i will give you sources from academics proving that this "empire" never existed.

well lets start with J. Spencer Trimingham. you can see that Trimmingham describes ajuran as a clan that migrated to the shebelle region, he describes them as being a tribal clan and points that they did not inhabit the bendair costal regions p. 113/148 [46]

according to Ioan Lewis the ajuran were a sub clan of the hawiye that occupied the land west to mogadishu and ruled the fertile lands of the shebelle region. [47]

Enrico Cerulli talks about them as well, stating that the Ajuran ruled a tiny state in the webi shabelle area that was allied to the muslim city states along the coast. [[48]]

I can provide even more sources [49][50][51] but the point is that there was never an entity called "the Ajuran Sultanate" from an academic pov. From the sources, it seems like Ajuran was a small tribal confederation of pastoralist nomads that was ruled by the Garen dynasty in the Shebelle area. I still stand by my statement that there is no academic or contemporary evidence that this polity ever existed. If you look at the article it states some wild exaggeration with very limited sources. (eg; Ajuran colonized Mozambique) محرر البوق (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you check whether the current sources in this article are RS and verify the content. Then, you may edit accordingly. For example, if a source talks about a clan instead of a sultanate, you may change it to clan in that specific sentence. You can also crop clear non-RS or put some up for discussion. When you're done, look back and if it seems that the article actually discusses a clan instead of a sultanate then, you can request a merge with Ajuran (clan) (which I didn't notice it exists in my first comment). By "authoritative sources", I meant a great amount of sources that can disqualify all the content in this article and justify a deletion, which is difficult. Aintabli (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@محرر البوق, I didn't recommend you to remove 35 thousand bytes in one edit. What I meant was to scrutinize the article, check each source, and remove them, if they are non-RS, in separate edits, explaining why it should be removed, preferably in detail. Such huge edits without much explanation will easily become controversial no matter what and may be considered disruptive. Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aintabli@Curbon7 I did check the sources for [52] and here is what I found.

the sources [53][54][55][56] and many more do not mention the Ajuran Sultanate. The rest are not full citations and have no links or pages example^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] (on the Ajuran-Portuguese battles).

Infact out of all citations, only [57] [58] [59] mention the Ajuran sultanate will full citations. Then there's other sources that mention the trading city states of the coast which Ajuran did not control. If you thoroughly look through the citations in the reflist. You will quickly come to the realization that the vast majority of this article is unsourced. محرر البوق (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC) محرر البوق (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ COINS FROM MOGADISHU, c. 1300 to c. 1700 by G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville pg 36
^ Four centuries of Swahili verse: a literary history and anthology – p. 11
^ The book of Duarte Barbosa – Page 30
^ The History of the Portuguese, During the Reign of Emmanuel pg.287

Keep: With no comment on the veracity of the article itself, as Horn of Africa articles can tend to be ripe with misinformation, this polity did certainly exist and has received significant coverage. Here are three literary sources I was able to locate with a quick perfunctory search.[60][61][62]. The citations of the latter source also list several additional works about this polity. Curbon7 (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is clearly a botched attempt at drive-by vandalism through ‘official’ means, the mass deletion of content compiled by various editors over the years is a good example of bad-faith editing by the nominator of this AfD[63], because none of those editors would have been given the chance to defend that content if it wasn’t reversed. A simple google search returns multiple reliable sources about this polity from various respected scholars and institutions, some of which Curbon7 already highlighted above.

None of User:محرر البوق sources actually claim that the Ajuran Empire never existed, this is you superimposing your Original Research and POV on the works of scholars and academics that make no such claims, please refrain from doing that, it is frowned upon and goes against Wikipedia policies on Neutral POV. The Portuguese never controlled the Somali coast, so their lack of knowledge on the politics of the region is not a surprise, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and as it stands, there are multiple scholars who do assert that the coast was under Ajuran suzerainty, so the exploits and fortunes of those coastal Somali cities in the period of Ajuran dominance will most definitely be discussed and highlighted in the article.

There are also enough scholars who refer to the state as an empire or a sultanate, so merging it with the article on the clan is out of the question, just as the Roman Empire and the city of Rome aren’t merged into one. I advise you to discuss each change on the talk page of the article and add the designated Wikipedia tags for citations and additional sources if you feel a claim should be elaborated. Vast undiscussed changes with vague summaries that hide multiple smaller edits will be scrutinised and overturned. I also see no justification for the AfD to continue based on the comments already made by myself, Aintabli and Curbon7. — GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenDragonHorn Even if this polity existed, large segments of the article remain unsourced and without full citations. The claim that the Ajuuran founded colonies in the Maldives and Mozambique is completely false, and there isn't even one reference cited that mentions Ajuran. Ajuran also wasn't involved in the Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts, there is no evidence of this and again there is also no evidence of a Muslim migration from Arabia, Persia, India and Spain into Ajuran territories as well, the source cited doesn't mention Ajuran.

You make some big claims such as the claim that there's respected scholars who refer to it as an "empire". Can you provide the names of these scholars? One shouldn't just look up content via google books and assume everything that comes up is reliable. I've already posted links and the names of academic scholars talking about this so called "empire". while I concede that cerulli does give it the name of a sultanate, NONE of the sources give it the name of an empire. You also claim that the Portuguese never controlled the Somali coast which is false[64][65]

The Somali coast might of been under Ajuran suzerainty but they never formed a single entity. The Somali city states and the Ajuran were always distinct and independent from one another despite being closely interlinked.[66] For example, the Ifat Sultanate for a large portion of it's history was under Ethiopian suzerainty, does it mean that the exploits and fortunes of ifat should be highlighted in the Ethiopian Empire article? There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the Somali coastal cities were independent and not under Ajuran rule, so there shouldn't be any reason why one should all this info into that article, this information should most likely be put under the Mogadishu or the Muzaffarids (Somalia) or even any other article dedicated to those city states. Remember that this article should be exclusively about the Ajuran state, not about whatever polities it interacted with. The only information about these cities that should be included is it's relationship with the Ajuran and what effect it had on the Ajuran.

Also it doesn't matter how much editors worked on this article. If the content they added is unsourced or inaccurate then it can be removed per -WP:RVREASONS

محرر البوق (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated the article for deletion, that was an extremely negative and disruptive move and does not show good will on your part nor does it show that you were originally interested in improving the article or the encyclopaedia as a whole, your intent was to get rid of it as quickly as possible with original POV research while weaponising a powerful tool like the AfD, without actually doing the necessary due diligence.

When that didn’t fly, you attempted to mass delete the article by disingenuously misrepresenting a comment made by Aintabli, which again was thwarted by another member. This is a clear pattern of bad-faith behaviour on your part.

No bueno.

You’re currently moving the goal posts and have switched from boldly claiming that it ‘didn’t exist’ and therefore not satisfying the benchmarks of WP:GNG (yet with no sources to back that up) to ‘maybe it existed’, but with the added red herring opinion that its not justified to discuss the economic arteries of an historic state like the Ajuran in the form of its port cities or their exploits in that specific time period.

In any case this AfD nomination is not the place to defend every single claim made in the article (which was not even my original intention). The purpose of an AfD is to determine whether an article is academically and historically notable through verifiable sources to justify its existence and inclusion on this encyclopaedia, and the Ajuran Sultanate qualifies in both cases.

You can start multiple individual sections in the article’s talk page about your issues with some of the claims highlighted above and you will have a better chance at a constructive consensus. I will certainly participate there considering the ethnocentric context of your POV, which is quite obvious from your recorded history of systematically cleansing any sourced content containing the word ‘Somali’ from multiple articles: [67], [68], [69].

All this combined with your bad faith AfD nomination, and unilateral attempts at mass deletion of the article’s content, and I am now tempted to escalate this to the arbitration enforcement committee, since the Horn of Africa still falls under their contentious topics umbrella. GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenDragonHorn First of all WP:AAGF, you’re making all of these wild accusation and assumptions about my intentions. I nominated the article for deletion because I believed that there wasn’t any adequate sources supporting its existence as I explained above, this is not disruptive editing. The article presents Ajuran as a naval empire while in reality that is certainty not the case, as my sources show it was an inland confederation that existed along the shores of the Shabelle and Jubba rivers. Also stop saying that the Ajuran had “coastal cities” I already argued that it did not (at least the major ones that were mentioned in the article) and you did not refute that.

I’m apparently moving the goalposts? Have you ever heard of a concession? Something that is wildly encouraged on Wikipedia? That’s how you find consensus. I’m getting signals that you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

WP:AFD The AfD nomination is absolutely a place to discuss about the content of an article. If there is a consensus to keep the article then Wikipedians should discuss about other ways one can improve the article, as other editors here have agreed this article is full of unverifiable information and unsourced content. That “mass deletion” was nothing more then an attempt at being WP:BOLD when it was reverted I did not revert it back and discussed with the user who reverted it on my talk page.

What is wrong with those edits? Do you have a problem with them? The Walashma were from Ifat which is west of Harar so they were most likely not of Somali origin, the Al Kawnyen theory is only stated by one academic which I included. Futuh Al Habesh first mentions Ahmad Gragn as being a young knight fighting for Hubat, there is absolutely no evidence that he was from Zayla, the ethnicity tab was a violation of WP:YESPOV as “most historians” do not state that he was an ethnic Somali. It has been proposed alongside other ethnicities and I’ve added sources and the opinions of various scholars, I did not remove the ones claiming that he was a Somali. And the claim that his army was “overwhelmingly Somali” is false as the ethnic composition of his army is described in Futuh Al Habesh as being 1/3 Somali 1/3 Harla and 1/3 Malassay. As far as I’m concerned, those edits were 100% justified and I wouldn’t have added them if I didn’t think so.

If you truly believe that I am a problematic editor go ahead and let the administrators know WP:AN. But you’ll probably have a hard time convincing them about the nonsense you’re spewing. You’re just ranting trying to change the topic, you’re not addressing ANY of the issues addressed in the article. You can continue to believe that the Ajuran was some great naval superpower with dominion over the Maldives and Mozambique, but including that in the article without any sources and reverting my edits accusing it as “mass deletion” is, in my opinion, a complete joke. محرر البوق (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a clear pattern of bad faith and ethnocentric POV pushing, an editor is not obligated to abide by WP:AAGF, much the same way an editor doesn’t have to assume good faith when dealing with an obvious sock puppeteer or a repeat 3RR offender. Its a privilege not a right. More importantly, two different unrelated users already pointed out to you that your unilateral actions could be perceived by other editors as disruptive and gaming the system. Well, I perceive them exactly as such. You’re also contradicting yourself by stating that the original cause for this nomination was because you confidently believed that the state didn’t exist, nor that there were any academic sources to prove its notability but at the same time push the narrative that it was an inland federation, so I guess it was an inland federation that didn’t exist?

What is clear is that you have made a lot of personal opinions and unsupported assertions in this AfD nomination about the Ajuran Sultanate, but provided no scholarly sources or references to back them word for word. Its irrelevant whether you personally don’t consider the Ajuran polity; a sultanate, a kingdom or an empire. What matters is that there are plenty of reliable sources that do:

“The Ajuuraan sultanate, a Muslim empire, is established in Somalia and soon controls large portions of East Africa.” - Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia Page 34

And another:

”There have been empires throughout recorded human history, such as the Roman, Mongol, and Ottoman Empires in Eurasia, the Ajuran Sultanate in Africa, and the Inca Empire in South America. They are often formed through military conquest or economic coercion.” - Law and Justice around the World: A Comparative Approach page 40 by Mikaila Mariel, Lemonik Arthur

And another:

”The Ajuran Empire, in the Horn of Africa, began to decline in the 17th century, succeeded by the Geledi Sultanate.” - History of Civilizations by Mason Kirby page 25.

Its irrelevant that you personally feel that the fortunes and exploits of the coastal cities in the period of Ajuran suzerainty shouldn’t be mentioned in the article just because the Wikipedia articles of other historic polities aren’t set up that way. What matters is that these coastal cities are discussed by scholars for their trade, politics and regional dynamics in a Ajuran context:

”An Ajuran family, Mudaffar, established a dynasty in the city, thus linking the two entities together; for the next 350 years.” - Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: A Historical Encyclopedia Page 253 by Michael Dumper, Bruce E. Stanley

And another:

”The Ajuran are said to have been allied with the Mudaffar dynasty which governed Mogadishu , thus creating a link between coastal and interior politics . The Ajuran leadership relied on this link to buttress its prestige and power.” - The Banaadir Past: Essays in Southern Somali History page 27.

Its also irrelevant that you personally don’t consider the Ajuran polity a naval power or even question its involvement in the wars against the Portuguese, because we have sources that do:

”Ajuraan's era of greatness corresponds very well with the short but intense Portuguese activities in the Indian Ocean” - Islamic Art and Culture in Sub-Saharan Africa page 122 by Karin Ådahl, Berit Sahlström

And another:

”The Portuguese empire expanded into the Persian Gulf, contesting control of the spice trade with the Ajuran Empire and the Ottoman Empire.”

Ibid:

“The Portuguese were soundly defeated in their attempt to capture wealthy Somali harbor cities on the Somali coast such as Mogadishu, Merca, Barawa, Kismayo and Hobyo by the powerful Somalis of the Ajuran Empire during the Battle of Barawa and Battle of Benadir.” - Portuguese empire during the period 1415-1663 and its relations with China and Japan–a case of early globalization by Pavel Stoynov - Journal of International Economy and Business 6 (71), 60-66, 2018

Sources are also unequivocal about Ajuran’s political domination over the South and Central regions of medieval Somalia, including the Indian Ocean coast for a period of over 300 years:

”AJURAN. An imamate or dynasty that emerged in Somalia to control the Shabelle valley from Qallafo, on the upper Shabelle, to the shores of the Indian Ocean, and from Mareeg on the central Somali coast to the Kenyan frontiers in the southwest, thus controlling most of the south-central regions of contemporary Somalia, from the mid-13th to the late 17th centuries.” - Historical Dictionary of Somalia page 35.

However, be that as it may, your systematic removal of any reliable sources that mention the Somali people in various articles is definitely problematic and casts a shadow on your recent actions here, because in the other article you removed a sourced statement that categorically stated in relation to a historical figure that ‘most scholars consider him Somali’ and another sourced statement that directly stated that ‘the army was overwhelmingly Somali’ and replaced it with synth, because a medieval Adalite chronicle (a primary source), discussing the army of Adal, also mentioned other important groups related to the Somali people during that time-period and therefore in your opinion it has precedent over secondary sources (despite the latter being the bread and butter of Wikipedia).

What is even more disturbing is the fact that your mathematical calculation of the army being 1/3 Somali, 1/3 Harla and 1/3 Malassay is not even mentioned by the primary source in question nor do any of the secondary sources available make that specific calculation. So this is the very definition of Original Research, but that edit and other problematic ones like it will be rectified in due time. Now we are discussing the Ajuran Sultanate.

The place to look for consensus was the article’s talk page, you opted instead (without doing your due diligence pertaining to section C of the WP:AFD guidelines) to push for a deletion process that in most cases would mainly involve senior editors with a periphery knowledge of the region or the subject in question and who could only judge the case based on the merit of its notability, which they did.

The correct way to have gone about it was to 1) add citation tags where necessary, 2) create new sections on the talk page about the boldest claims, 3) trace back those specific edits in the history page and contact the editors that added them in the article with a friendly request if they could corroborate or clarify their statements. If you were to still be ignored then look for sources yourself, and if you failed to find any, then apply WP:BOLD.

This would have accorded you good faith in my eyes and those of others, but your entire modus operandi was the opposite of this. Nominating an article for deletion is not being bold or looking for consensus, its disruptive especially when there was clear easy access to a mountain of reliable sources proving its notability. I repeat again none of your sources in any shape or form claim that the Ajuran Sultanate never existed, which was the foundation of your case for deletion. I also reiterate once more that several dozen reliable sources have now been provided by me and by others that confidently determine that this article meets all the bench marks of notability, so I suggest you withdraw the nomination if improving the encyclopaedia and the article was your true intention. — GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first restule I get at GScholar is an entry under the same title in Wiley's Encyclopedia of Empire. That's enough. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenDragonHorn "When there is a clear pattern of bad faith and ethnocentric POV pushing, an editor is not obligated to abide by WP:AAGF.... Its a privilege not a right." It's apart of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, please read WP:BF. I really don't care about how you interpret my edits, if you think that I'm being disruptive then that's your problem. Go ahead and report my problematic behavior to the the administrators because I'm not sure what your end goal is. Yes, I still believe that there is very little academic sources about the existence of this polity (actual reliable sources from respected scholars and publishers not whatever crap you just cited), but I was forced to make concessions because there seems to be a consensus that the article should be kept. You obviously have no idea how Wikipedia discussions work. I have provided multiple sources in this discussion you're just dismissing them. I don't need to provide a source word for word that is completely ridiculous, you're just finding every excuse just to dismiss and ignore them. I gave you the PDFs of works from highly respected academics like Enrico Cerulli and Ioan Lewis, feel free to take a look and enjoy.

Those are not "reliable sources", you're obviously going on google books and looking up "ajuran empire" and whatever comes up you're trying to pass them off as "scholarly sources". The first 4 and the last sources are tertiary sources. Its irrelevant that you personally feel that the fortunes and exploits of the coastal cities in the period of Ajuran suzerainty shouldn’t be mentioned in the article just because the Wikipedia articles of other historic polities aren’t set up that way. What matters is that these coastal cities are discussed by scholars for their trade, politics and regional dynamics in a Ajuran context: Scholars? Who the hell even are these people? They don't mention these cities in an "Ajuran context" that is straight up your own interpterion, it seems like they briefly mention Ajuran and mention the links these cities had to the interior polity, that's it. Anything else is your own interpterion. “The Portuguese were soundly defeated in their attempt to capture wealthy Somali harbor cities on the Somali coast such as Mogadishu, Merca, Barawa, Kismayo and Hobyo by the powerful Somalis of the Ajuran Empire during the Battle of Barawa and Battle of Benadir.” The Portuguese were not defeated in those battles, most notably in Barawa where contemporary sources describe them destroying the city which was followed by a terrible massacre. Here is one provided by Barnaby Rogerson [70] So the source you cited is obviously incorrect but you still parade it around as a "reliable source". No offense at all, but it seems like you are lacking competence as you do not have the ability to assess the reliability of the sources you are citing.

Most scholars do not consider Imam Ahmad to be a Somali, some do some don't. The Somali theory is out there but so is the Harla, Arab, Afar, etc. I merely removed that and stated the opinion of various academics, including those who consider him to be a Somali. Reminder, we have to be completely neutral and state everyone's opinion WP:YESPOV. As for the ethnic composition of his army, I replaced it with another secondary source from the University of Cambridge that includes Somalis. is not even mentioned by the primary source in question nor do any of the secondary sources available make that specific calculation. Please read page 53/284 on Futuh al Habesh.[71] The army of Imam Ahmad was spilt into 3 divisions, 1 was Somali, 1 was Harla and the other was Malassay. Not sure what you're whining about because I didn't add this information into any article. If you attempt to revert those edits believe me, I will be there to dispute it.

Like I said I believe that there wasn't any academic sources proving the existence of this article so I nominated it for deletion, other editors disagreed with me so I talked about other ways one can improve this article. That's it, don't feel like repeating myself. create new sections on the talk page about the boldest claims, 3) trace back those specific edits in the history page and contact the editors that added them in the article with a friendly request if they could corroborate or clarify their statements. You don't need to discuss or reach out to other users before making edits when being WP:BOLD... that's kind of the whole point of "being bold"....

Now please learn how to identify reliable sources and how to properly cite them instead of wasting my time. محرر البوق (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, after multiple sources (proving clear due weight and notability) were provided by us you are now nitpicking and shifting to wikilawyering on whether you personally consider them ‘reliable’ or not. Despite four different unrelated editors pointing out to you that this polity does meet the benchmarks of notability you still refuse to acknowledge this reality, even terming some of the sources provided as ‘crap’ in your personal hierarchy. This is not helpful.

But let’s use a scholar that you yourself recommended above (I.M Lewis) and see what he has to say about the Ajuran polity and the most important coastal city:

”Under a hereditary dynasty, the Ajuran consolidated their positions as masters of the fertile reaches of the lower Shabelle basin and established a commercial connection with the port of Mogadishu where some of their clansmen settled.

The fortunes of this Ajuran Sultanate thus appear to have been closely linked with those of Mogadishu, and the Ajuran reached the summit of their power in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century when Mogadishu was ruled by the Muzaffar Dynasty, an aristocracy related to if not actually of Ajuran stock.” - [72]

Its important to highlight that you have provided several sources but none of which that support any of the bold claims you made in your original nomination post outside of synth. None that question the existence of the Ajuran polity, or deny its notability, which was simply pointed out to you, and which made this AfD bankrupt at conception. That’s not me dismissing your sources, that’s you not substantiating your bold opinions and assertions, which is a big difference.

Whether one scholar considers the violent Portuguese sack of Barawa as a victory, and whether another scholar considers it a defeat is not the subject matter in this discussion (and is still protected by WP:THISORTHAT), what does matter is that I have demonstrated adequately that the Ajuran polity is most definitely discussed by academics in relation to the Portuguese and their medieval activities in the Indian Ocean, which is something you denied.

I will ignore the side discussion not related to the Ajuran Sultanate for now and your amusing comment on my cognitive skills aside, I do not think that your incompetent, which makes this nomination all the more sinister, because how could four different unrelated editors come to the same conclusion, but you didn’t?

I would never accuse another editor of pushing an nationalist POV unless there was a clear history in the form of diffs, see here another example. [73] There is no need to defend your rationale behind the edit in this AfD like you did with the previous diffs. I only use them to demonstrate that you do have an angle, much the same way a Russian nationalist editor mass deleting content or nominating articles for deletion about Ukrainian culture or Ukrainian history would have an angle and would be seen as problematic. Its not a personal attack to point this out with evidence, but I can see that you’re getting frustrated, so from henceforth I will refrain my pointing this out any further.

However, I will remind you of the fact that the Horn of Africa and all the articles about the region fall under the contentious topics umbrella overseen by the Arbitration Committee for a good reason. Unilateral actions such as mass deletions, sudden page moves that change the common name of an article or creating an AfD nomination without clear talk page consensus or discussion beforehand can be perceived as actively undermining the encyclopaedia, and are therefore potentially subject to sanctions, because editing a Horn of Africa related article is not the same as editing the Mickey Mouse or the Eiffel Tower articles.

I made my case for this article’s notability, and will defer judgement to the other editors. — GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenDragonHorn That's not wikilayering, I'm verifying these sources to see if they're accurate or not. As for I.M Lewis statements, he imo is referring to Ajuran as a clan based petty kingdom. Enrico Cerulli also stated something similar. This in contrast to the article which describes Ajuran as being a trading naval empire. totally inaccurate.

But you misinterpreted my point about you not assessing the reliability of sources. I did not say anything about your cognitive ability, but that you didn't really know how to cite and verify sources. Which is an important competency to edit wikipedia. When citing references you have to analyze the author, publisher and content to see if they are considered accurate, use the proper template, list the title, page number, url, isbn, quote,etc. I used to lack skills in this too and it took me a while to learn this as well, but this is extremely important when editing wikipedia. Also there is no serious scholar that disputes the outcome of the battle of barawa. the source you cited was written by a bulgarian economics professor from the university of sofia. and he list wikipedia in his references[74], not an accurate source at all.

I did interpret your accusations as a personal attack. And likewise under a contentious topics accusing users of certain behavior (vandalism, disruptive editing, etc) can be considered a personal attack and get you blocked from editing. While I don't believe that you crossed a line or anything, your first reply was clearly written very combatively and was less about the content of the article and more of my motives and previous edits.

As for your opinion on the Ajuran Sultanate I respect it and don't wish to discuss further about this as this nomination should be closed soon. Only wished to clear some things up before it does. محرر البوق (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has policies for tertiary sources which allows for its inclusion into articles when necessary, dismissing them solely for their status as tertiary is not productive. There is also no need to patronise me, I have not added any of the secondary and tertiary sources listed above into the article, so your demand for ISBN numbers and other benchmarks as proof of competency, or a lack thereof, as a Wikipedia editor is kind of strange, since this is a talk page, where sources are regularly put forward, dismissed or accepted during a discussion. I.M Lewis also quite clearly refers to the polity as the ‘Ajuran Sultanate’ not the clan, or a tribe.

Though I understand you might feel that me pointing out that you have POV is a personal attack (we all have one), that was not the intention. More importantly, in doing so I have not broken any rules, either set by Wikipedia or the ArbCom, as I used clear diffs to demonstrate it. However, since I have no interest in making this platform a toxic place for another editor, I will retract my previous statements, and we can start from a clean slate. — GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Raladic (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense Party of California[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG notability and reads like a WP:PROMO. Most of the references are primary and one of the references even implies possible fraud, which is conveniently left out of the article. Raladic (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and California. Raladic (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article's promo content or lack of relevant issues have no bearing on notability, those be resolved via copy-editing. In a five minute search I found mutli-year RS SIGCOV of the Party, some examples: LA Times profile Feb 2022, Orange County Register March 2022, San Francisco Chronicle Sept 2020, KPBS September 2020, NewsNation Jan 2023. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the comment, I submit that under the WP:SIGCOV, I suppose it would meet the notability standard.

But with the article in its current form being an advert under WP:PROMO, does WP:NOT as one of the four policies on deletion per WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL-REASON not still apply as grounds for the AfD, or move into draft space? Raladic (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If an article on Coca-Cola only contained information about how good it tasted, it would be PROMO, but that would not mean it was not a valid subject for an article because the notability of Coca-Cola can be easily demonstrated via independent reliable sourcing. As is the case here, the solution to the problem is copy-editing, not deletion. Note the qualifying clause to DEL-REASON #4. "without any relevant or encyclopedic content." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for explaining the nuance. I hope someone will make the copy edits to make it less promotional.

I will withdraw the AfD per your explanation as speedy keep. Raladic (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2023 (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 . $Salvio giuliano$ 09:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Donnelly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability under WP:GNG. The actress is not very popular. The article is very less visited and contains not enough information with reliable sources. Zero independent third-party RS biographical coverage that I could find; total third-party cites are two questionable collections of gossip. Ashik Rahik (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ashik Rahik (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2023 (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/2023 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The actress' article has seven inline cites and her IMDb entry lists five films and 70 TV episodes, including a leading role in Just Add Magic (TV series). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one of the sources cited meets Golden rule, and so it contains no evidence at all of notability. Ashik Rahik (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has had a leading role in a long-running TV series. That fact, by itself, is evidence of considerable notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, her acting parts are all bit parts or one-offs. Rotten Tomatoes is a dead end, confirming all her parts are one-offs. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there needs to be more citations, I do think it currently has enough to pass GNG. As of now, it has 4 unique websites cited.

Delete, BLP, not good enough resources. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 22:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited are not good enough. Not a single one meet the Golden rule. So no evidence for notability. Ashik Rahik (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable enough, needs better sources rather than deleting.Dickie-bow-tie (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single one of the sources cited meets Golden rule, and so it contains no evidence at all of notability. Those claiming notability need to produce some sources. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The actress is not very popular: Not a reason to delete. The article is very less visited: Than what, I wonder. But anyway, not a reason to delete. However, no good sources cited: a reason to delete. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to meet the first criterion of WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". While the sourcing is abysmal, if the "main role" entries are true, then this actor would be considered notable. I have no opinion either way. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until adequate sources can be found. Maproom (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE showed promo and database listings, but nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:

Comments	Source
RottenTomatoes profile, fails SIGCOV	1. "Abby Donnelly - Rotten Tomatoes". rottentomatoes.com/. Retrieved 18 August 2022.
Interview, primary	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g French, Leah (October 28, 2016). "Abby Donnelly Interview". unclearmag.com.
Interview, primary	3. ^ Barratt, Kira (19 January 2016). "This Just Add Magic star talks dream roles and fave recipes". Girls' Life.
About the series, mentions subject	4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Malibu Rescue: The Series". tv.apple.com. Retrieved 18 August 2022.
IMDB	5. ^ Adam Devine's House Party (TV Series 2013– ) - IMDb, retrieved 2021-11-21
Meet the cast promo article	6. ^ "Meet the Cast of "Malibu Rescue" and Their Characters", Seventeen, 7 June 2019
IMDB	7. ^ Stumptown (TV Series 2019–2020) - IMDb, retrieved 2021-11-21
IMDB	8. ^ Just Add Magic: Mystery City (TV Series 2020– ) - IMDb, retrieved 2021-11-21
IMDB	9. ^ Malibu Rescue: The Next Wave (2020) - IMDb, retrieved 2021-11-21

None of the keep votes are based on sources or guidelines.

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 04:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Below is another source:

Comments	Source
Interview, primary	Abby Donnelly Chats Just Add Magic, her Female Inspirations, & More

—Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 April 2023 (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!} 06:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shade sandbox[edit]

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

Software isn't exactly notable in any way. Article appears to be entirely promotional and the creator of it has only contributed to the one article [75] along with adding a link to it on Sandboxie. [76] Sources on the program appear to be nonexistent, with few websites briefly mentioning its existence; article itself uses very poor sources. Dawnbails (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Dawnbails (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful for software to have a collector page where information can be gathered later on. I don't receive any commission for supporting this. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.217.205 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note here that this IP's only contribution at all is to this AFD, and stating "I don't receive any commission for supporting this" makes this reply seem more like WP:CONFLICT.

As for the argument made in the reply itself, this article has existed for nearly eight years with minor improvements and using just about the same references. I think it's safe on my part to say that information here cannot be gathered; there is no information to gather on this program that doesn't come from either its own creators or from very brief mentions on random tech news and tutorial websites that don't qualify for WP:GNG. Dawnbails (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I can find exactly zero sources with significant coverage of the subject. Ignoring the fact that IP's comment is their only contribution, the sentiment appears to be misguided - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Tollens (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable piece of software, there are no reviews of it in PC Mag, Cnet or just about any of the other sources we'd use for software. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2023 (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 Verkligen. ✗plicit 01:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halka (song)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSONG. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject (the single) directly and indepth. No objection to a consensus redirect to the album Verkligen, similar redirects have been rv'd so establishing CONSENSUS needed. // Timothy :: talk 00:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent album, no (notability) justification for separate article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent album. The search is difficult given halka is a common Turkish word, but even digging past as much of that as I could, I didn't see anything. Charting is unimpressive and can be mentioned in the album article if it's really wanted there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Quality Assurance[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent sources which satisfy NCORP LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything either; given the huge relevance and profile of quality assurance in general, I would expect a notable society representing quality assurance to have a lot more hits than the Scottish Qualifications Authority, but it doesn't. Might be a US thing and I'm missing it because I'm in the UK. Article reads like a mission brochure. I'd suggest delete, and if it ever turns into anything in the future, re-create then. Elemimele (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2023 (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 House (season 7)#Episodes. ✗plicit 00:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now What? (House)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable Tagged for clean up December 2011 1keyhole (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House_(season_7)#Episodes, as only 1 review found. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What's the cut-off line for retention of TV episodes? One review? Two? Bearian (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House_(season_7)#Episodes per above. // Timothy :: talk 04:31, 20 April 2023 (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.