< August 26	August 28 >

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mizanur Rahman Khan[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Two obituaries used as sources and looking for sources I did not find any significant coverage that would contribute towards notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism, News media, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Seemingly non-notable, though some light searching indicates that he was a rather influential journalist/editor at the largest newspaper in Bangladesh. Would err on the side of delete unless someone (perhaps with better access to Bangladeshi sources than I) could provide evidence of greater notability.

A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has several references in journalism, writing and research. And they have depth and significant coverage. So it can be kept. --DelwarHossain (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show some of them here?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Didn’t find any WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BEFORE found obits, nothing with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:49, 3 September 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 find the deletion arguments substantially stronger. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Roughan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there are some article about her like 2011 Stuff-article during her early years, 2021 Daily-Sun-article about her and her partner and 2023 NZ-Times-article described her as the captain at the 2023 World Championships. Articles not counting I think (too short and somehow related to the subject) are the many of announcement- and results-articles with some paragraphs about her like NAU Athletics and New Zealand athletics. Note that her best result: 10th-place at the 2023 World Championships is not included in the article. 109.37.152.36 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you 109.37.152.36 for finding the 2011 Stuff article (the first link above), I think this is a good reference to support notability. But it doesn't seem enough on its own, so does anyone have more examples of in-depth coverage? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Twice represented New Zealand at the IAAF World Cross Country Championships (highest level of the sport of cross country) and captained the national women's team. SFB 17:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Representing at the "highest" level is not a criterion for WP:NTRACK. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 of the 4 sources are primary. The other one is a small mention of Roughan. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.The Stuff article is a high school interview (fails YOUNGATH) conducted by a journalism student (not RS) N. All the other sources are passing mentions. The Daily Sun article literally just says, 3/4 of the way into the text, "So Baxter, his wife, Emily Roughan, and Miles booked tickets." That's the only time she is mentioned other than once in a followup quote by Baxter. That is patently not an article about her and her partner N. The times.co.nz article has 1.5 sentences mentioning her N. Does not meet GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 29 August 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 23:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Moradi Ghiasabadi[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Existing sourcing is mostly to self-published material. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Archaeology, and Iran. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly fails WP:NPROF and he does not seem to have a substantial impact on the academic discourse. The few mentions of him in the academic literature describe him as a freelance researcher in a local University journal. Nothing in the article indicates notability. The only coverage I could find was this single article [1] about ancient board games that were discovered, which is pretty short and not really about him but about the discovery he made. --hroest 21:59, 31 August 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 23:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Dereschuk[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a beauty pageant contestant or reality TV contestant. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Minnesota. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG; cannot be considered as a notable. Ekdalian (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:09, 2 September 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 23:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Jordan (Miss Tennessee)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant winner. Let'srun (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing since her win, and that's not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All coverage relates to the beauty pageant win. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:11, 2 September 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!} 01:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country-Wide Insurance Company[edit]

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

Article written by a likely WP:UPE sock farm, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eatdrinkmerry/Archive

In the meantime, a BEFORE turns up nothing here BrigadierG (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and New York. BrigadierG (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of any extensive coverage. They have a financial rating [2] and gave Trump's campaign money [3]. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any reference that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reference (reliable source) and notability issue makes it a perfect candidate for deletion! Ekdalian (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to flawed nomination, since many sources exist for this 60-year old company, which I have added to the article (WP:HEY):
"No-fault Insurance Law Ruled 'Constitutional'", (where the company challenged a SCOTUS ruling)

"Insurers Ranked by Complaints"

"Country-Wide Under Fire From State Insurance Dept"

"State Ranks Best, Worst Automobile Insurers"

"State Revises Ranking of Insurance Carriers"

"A.M. Best Revises Outlook to Negative for New York's Country-Wide", (a trade journal that goes into depth about the company)

As the situation stands now, almost every sentence in the article is backed up by a third-party independent source, and the promotional tone has been completely excised. StonyBrook _babble 17:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, I think of these, only the last one is a plausible claim to notability. The additional source search is greatly appreciated, but even by the standards of the time, rankings updates is likely WP:ROUTINE and their involvement in a legal case has a WP:INHERITED issue given that they're only mentioned superficially there. I don't have an account to access the last source so it's difficult to comment. BrigadierG (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Open-access link: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2017/07/12/457385.htm — StonyBrook _babble 04:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I think this coverage is also routine. A change in rating is similar to reporting on a change in stock price which is explicitly covered as not implying notability. BrigadierG (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review recently discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notwithstanding StonyBrook's diligent work. This company is on the edge of notability. As insurance companies go, it's small: just 250 employees and sales are limited to the New York City area. What might make it notable are all the negative reports and legal issues associated with this company. I turned up >50 using the Wikipedia Library. From a Wikipedia procedural standpoint, while collectively they paint a picture of the company, they're all small news chunks and that's not good enough for our unusually stringent requirements for any articles about companies. Otherwise, I'd say "keep" because there are certainly enough reliable sources to support an reliable article. Final comment: I would not buy their insurance.

Ping me if something promising turns up to establish notability.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:24, 28 August 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 Power (social and political). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Power structure[edit]

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

Perhaps delete and merge into Power (social and political)? GnocchiFan (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs work and a lot more sources, but the subject seems more than merely notable. The term itself is used in common parlance and rarely elaborated upon, making it a natural subject for an encyclopaedia. The paucity of information here is disappointing, as is the lack of such obvious concepts as familial and managerial power structures that we deal with every day of our lives. I am surprised the nomination got past D4, though, as gScholar has scads of info that would greatly improve the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power (social and political). As it stands it is too dense with jargon, too unstructured, and too poorly sourced. Needs to be rewritten from scratch. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are opinions here to Keep, Redirect, Merge and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Power (social and political) The article does not have enough sources and is unstructured. I suggest a full rewrite of the article in order for it to be kept. FlutterDash344 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Merge to Power (social and political): per above. // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 3 September 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 23:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Akhunova[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It doesn't look like she meets WP:GNG, especially if WP:FORBESCON pieces are excluded. I was only able to find other sponsored or passing coverage on a WP:BEFORE search for both "Renata Akhunova" and "Renata George". Are there any better sources from Russian news/magazines? BuySomeApples (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Russia. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning weak delete here. Lots of promotional coverage and the article itself seems like it's intended to promote (even after a bunch of "fluff" was removed a decade ago), but I'm falling short of a boldtext !vote because I'm unfamiliar with the non-English sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides source issue mentioned above, article was created and has been maintained over many years by a SPA. Likely a vanity autobiography. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a bunch or press, old and new.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2012/05/15/femanomics-the-top-women-in-venture-capital-and-angel-investing/?sh=4334037954e4

https://www.forbes.com/sites/valleyvoices/2015/08/14/what-kind-of-opportunities-are-lost-without-women-investors/?sh=c24a429681d0

https://www.vedomosti.ru/press_releases/2022/08/22/mkb-i-dolina-mgu-vorobyovi-gori-zapustili-neakselerator

https://www.wmmsk.com/2022/01/renata-george/

https://rb.ru/story/renatageorge/

https://2023.startupvillage.ru/speakers?page=2 45.137.112.17 (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— 45.137.112.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 128.252.210.4 (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has been orphaned for over a decade. Quite a few unsourced statements. Google shows few results for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlifanofmrTennant (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 September 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 Ivory Coast women's international footballers. ✗plicit 23:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huguette Bohoussou[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Ivory Coast women's international footballers. The subject earned at least one cap for the Ivory Coast women's national football team. I am unable to find any in-depth coverage at all, failing WP:GNG. No indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Ivory Coast. JTtheOG (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. No coverage to indicate notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:31, 28 August 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 Albania women's international footballers. ✗plicit 23:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antigona Hyska[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Albania women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Albania women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found minor coverage like 1, 2 and 3, as well as an interview. JTtheOG (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Albania. JTtheOG (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect The subject is not notable enough to have an article of their own. There is one or two interviews but nothing like in-depth coverage. Ktrimi991 (talk)
Redirect per nom - no SIGCOV to indicate notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails GNG! Redirect to the list mentioned above would be appropriate in my opinion. Ekdalian (talk) 17:11, 29 August 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 23:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genèvre Charles[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least two caps for the Haiti women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Please ping me if sources are found.
Yes, I really did just copy GiantSnowman's format, and I know he will see this :-) Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:31, 28 August 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 23:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Victoria[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least two caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Dominican Republic, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. BEFORE showed stats, promo, game news, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 23:29, 3 September 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 23:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiana López[edit]

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

Not notable for Wikipedia. Didn't win a medal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Mexico. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like she might be discussed here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she is silver medalist at the 1986 Central American and Caribbean Games (foil team) and also medalist at the 1987 Pan American Games. As she was internationally active in the 1980s, sources should be searched at off-line Spanish-language sources. All-in-all, together with the source provided by BeanieFan11 I would say a weak keep. 109.37.152.36 (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and violates WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. BilledMammal (talk) 00:57, 3 September 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!} 03:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Soniat[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much on the page seems to be sufficient notability for a BLP. Seems unlikely that being a talented amateur musician is notable, and I'm dubious whether being the director of a botanical garden is enough. Either way, this page has been unreferenced for way too long. JMWt (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Louisiana. JMWt (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 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 ÍNN. ✗plicit 23:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Óli á Hrauni[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2013 DonaldD23 talk to me 21:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iceland. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to ÍNN, Fails GNG and tv notability. I could find no sources online at least with English searching. If reliable sources are found I will reconsider. Nagol0929 (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ÍNN, the TV station it was broadcasted on, as a possible search term and redirects are WP:CHEAP. Despite the TV station definitely being notable and the host possibly being so, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in Icelandic sources about the show itself, just alot of mentions. @Nagol0929:, would you mind a redirect? Alvaldi (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all I’ll change right now Nagol0929 (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This looks adorable and I want there to be an article on it, but my albeit brief attempts to find sources or commentary to establish its cultural significance have come up with nothing. I also find it telling that the Scandinavian language Wikipedias don't have an article on this subject either, so we can't mine them for sources. Given this, I concur with the Redirect above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 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 23:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaasa FM mast[edit]

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

non-notable mast, but can redirect to List of tallest structures in Finland as it is mentioned there — Karnataka ^talk 21:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 21:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely not notable enough for its own article. I wouldn't even bother redirecting as the other towers at List of tallest structures in Finland without an article don't have redirects either. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:42, 1 September 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 23:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parvati kurakula[edit]

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

non-notable author whose main claim to notability is the founding of a journalism website. cannot find sources other than short bios in employment/database sites — Karnataka ^talk 21:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Journalism, News media, and India. — Karnataka ^talk 21:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any reliable secondary sources covering this writer. Article seems awfully promotional. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and seems like a ChatGPT generated content. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 08:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is ChatGPT generated, you can see their replies on my talk page for more details. — Karnataka ^talk 10:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, noticed. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many primary, unreliable sources, Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP: reliable sources Criteria , IssueWire as the first reference? Bad sourcing! This topic is in no way notable and doesn't show any significant coverage in a newspaper or online print media. Frankymulls (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AryKun (talk) 15:24, 2 September 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 23:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glendora Historical Society[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2017. My WP:BEFORE brought up only passing mentions in newspapers and books (mainly event listings or credits for providing images). Not opposed to merging/redirecting to Rubel Castle, which is notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and California. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:00, 27 August 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 Pokémon Trading Card Game. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kadabra[edit]

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

One of the much older Pokemon articles on here, it's held up entirely by the lawsuit which in all fairness can be summarized briefly. Any discussion that was there is barebones and extremely limited, with the most reaction being to one particular Pokedex entry and in all fairness all the same reaction. WP:BEFORE didn't provide anything else either, and when listicle and extremely brief sources were cleaned out there wasn't anything left. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Discussion seems to lean towards possibly moving this to Kadabra controversy or at the very least moving the information to Uri Geller's page on here. I think either option would be fine as an alternative.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam - we went over this 2 years ago and everyone decided that Kadabra was the only notable Pokemon there. Stuff like this, this and this are definitive proof it's notable, and whether it's due to a controversy or by its own merits is irrelevant. At most it's a discussion for a potential move to Kadabra controversy, but some page on this should exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least the argument can be made that the controversy is the notable aspect and not the Pokemon itself, but it's still something that can be summarized briefly in a sentence or two. Why would you feel a whole article is necessary?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's been news coverage over decades, so I feel like this is indicative of an unnecessary rush to merge things that may be notable unto themselves. There's not really a specific reason I think it's necessary, I just also don't agree it should be forced into a merge. I think my views are best summed up with WP:NOTPAPER - if it's minor, but it's notable, Wikipedia doesn't have to combine it to "save space" or some such. There's space for most anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still just one singular event, and even then looking at the sources there's not a lot to say. It can be summed up in a single paragraph, and the other aspects of Kadabra as a fictional character have nothing to do with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this were before there was a bunch of news coverage about how Geller took back his accusations, I'd probably agree with you. I think that shows WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and importance. The fact that this has been an issue that fans have cared deeply about for 20 years and enough to force a well-known figure to walk something back is unusual for most characters, much less an individual Pokemon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Zx's argument after some debate. I wouldn't be opposed to a move to a "Kadabra controversy" page, or a potential merge to Geller's own article, but the information here is inherently notable. I feel the focus being on the Pokemon may be a bit misplaced, given the focus on the controversy more than anything else. Kadabra did have some controversy besides that, but I don't know if it's enough to merit separation.

As an aside, I went searching for additional sources a while back and found these:

It's a Dark World - Google Books

These are the creepiest Pokemon to ever exist - WIN.gg

But they're admittedly rather iffy, and I don't know if that's even close to enough to help the article substantially. If anyone performs a search and finds anything not in the article, then it might help its case. Regardless, I'm willing to change my vote depending on how the discussion goes, but for now I'll concur with a Weak Keep vote. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it, win.gg appears to not be listed on WP:VG/RS; however, my observation is that it does not appear to have an editorial policy, and the staff's credentials are not evident. I would contend that it is almost certainly not reliable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a very iffy source, but I felt it would be good to at least reference its existence just in case. Doesn't seem like it'll be too handy now, though. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per as hashed out 2 years ago and determined notable by standards that have not appreciably changed since. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Kadabra is notable for a single event. I also find that a "Kadabra controversy" article would run afoul of recent decisions regarding controversy articles. For something that can easily be summed up in a few sentences - "[Whomever got sued] was sued by Uri Geller for allegedly stealing his spoon bending as part of creating the design for Kadabra. This led to Kadabra not being featured in the Pokémon Trading Card Game for years in order to avoid controversy. Geller ultimately gave permission for Nintendo to resume printing of the card after Pokémon fan comments convinced him to do so." The article relies exclusively on this event to assert notability; the concept and creation section's only creation info is that Kadabra once had a different name, and the rest of the Reception has nothing of note. It's either listicles that all say the same thing, a non-notable and unverified instance of a preacher calling out Kadabra as Satanic, and additional details tied to the Geller case. Are we truly saying that a Pokémon is notable solely based on a single event? It seems to me like an extremely low bar for notability at that rate. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consensus was to keep 2 years ago and that Kadabra is especially notable of the 3 Pokemon included in that AFD. Not much has changed since then. FYI the nominator blanked large parts of the reception section prior to nominating it for deletion. While some of the removal was fair enough, I've restored the sourcing which I believe to be more than a "trivial mention" which is the litmus test used for WP:SIGCOV. As part of the blanking rationale it was said that listicles can't be used. I believe that as long as their is some level of discussion about the character a listicle is fine to include per SIGCOV which states the article subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". This is notwithstanding that SIGCOV is purely a notability guideline and does not dictate MOS, i.e. article content. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now hold on, I outright stated at the beginning I removed sources that were mostly trivial or unusable, and you restored two (2): one is an Inverse article repeating the "kid can turn into Kadabra is creepy!" sentiment in the very same manner as two of the previous entries, and the other is ScreenRant which is doing exactly the same thing, and per WP:VG/S shouldn't be used for notability more often than not. With [12] and [13] saying the same thing, are we really arguing repeated lists commenting about the same single Pokedex entry makes it notable? Previous AfDs on this same sort of subject have shown that doesn't hold much water.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken re ScreenRant (though I do question whether WP:VG has the power to override a WP:RSN discussion that Screen Rant is usable for everything except controversial statements in BLPs. I do not agree with your other point though. Surely multiple reliable sources independently saying the same thing about something makes said thing more notable, not less. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a case of all the sources saying exactly the same sentiment on exactly the same thing, and it doesn't help "disturbing pokedex entry lists" are to Pokemon what "Top 10 Hotties lists" are to female video game characters when it comes to media outlets. If they said different things (especially about different entries) I would agree but they could easily just be bulletpoint chained behind one encompassing ref.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Lawsuits section of Uri Geller. There have been several AfD nominations for Pokemon entries recently. In terms of notability, the consensus for these sort of determinations seems to be whether there are independent and reliable sources that offer some perspective about the Pokemon external to the work, often its design or reception. Sources with trivial reception (i.e. listicles stating it's the best, it's "scary", or it's "cool") tend not to be seen as a strong case for notability, which makes up most of this article's 'Reception' section. I'm not sure this is a Snorlax-type article where anything significant is being said in independent sources about Kadabra itself, how it was conceived, what impact it has had on popular culture, and anything in-depth about its reception. The sourcing is generally poor. Arguments that the AfD has already been considered should note the discussion was for Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam, which had three times the sources of the current article. In this case, I think the only thing establishing notability is the Geller controversy, which does seem to have engendered some mainstream attention, such as People, CBS, and BBC, but this is an unusual case where the notability of the subject matter is being argued for its controversy revolving around someone else. Given Geller's litigious reputation and coverage in his article, that episode is appropriate to cover there. Without that section, I think the article would not be notable in its current state. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After going through the reception and cleaning it up, I found multiple cases where the text was somewhat padded, as well as some text that was not true to what was written in the source. Aside from the Geller sources, which are easily summed up in a single paragraph, you have a preacher whose criticisms of Kadabra were reported on by only one newspaper; a handful of sources reacting to Pokedex entries and making roughly the same commentary; and a user poll. I've not yet looked into the sources provided in the AfD, however. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cukie Gherkin. Only the lawsuit section has anything substantial and independent. I removed the line about the preacher taking issue with it as WP:UNDUE. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pokemon Trading Card Game, where the relevant controversy can be covered. If Kadabra were a BLP, this would be a BLP1E which wouldn’t necessarily require an article on its own. That aside, that’s all that’s really noteworthy about Kadabra, and putting it in the card game article highlights its impact there. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Lawsuits section of Uri Geller or Pokemon Trading Card Game. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 18:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, as there is good information in lawsuits but not needed as an article on it's own. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a lot of the coverage isn't really about this Pokemon, and there is a better target to cover it. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 30 August 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 List of nightclub fires. ✗plicit 23:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yaoundé nightclub fire[edit]

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

Created in the aftermath of the fire and lightly edited since, since the fire does not appear to have had any lasting legacy, changes to building codes or operations ,etc. Aware of systemic bias, but this does not appear to have been a notable fire. Star Mississippi 20:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cameroon. Star Mississippi 20:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of nightclub fires, it does seem to have wide coverage but limited impact puts notability into question per the nomination. If anyone does further investigation or more notability is determined in the future, then article re-creation should be allowed. - Indefensible (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sustained coverage, and this incident is already mentioned at List of nightclub fires. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listed but without references, it requires some material to be merged. - Indefensible (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Indefensible's reasoning. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:32, 31 August 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'm setting aside the first "keep", as it has no basis in policy, but not the second, as despite canvassing concerns it has a basis in policy and is argued on the merits. Nonetheless, there is consensus to delete; where there is policy-based disagreement (in this case about WP:AUD), numerical tilt comes into play. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Valley Historical Society[edit]

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

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

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

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

I got an opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and I believe not having an article on local historical societies is reasonable absent unusual notability.

I am suggesting deletion, because it is hyperlocal and lacks broader area notability applicable in worldwide scope (WP:NORG) and it also looks like a brochure of what they have to offer and visitor information complete with name of EACH staff member in infobox. (WP:NOT) Graywalls (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and California. Graywalls (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Carmel Valley Historical Society is listed under the List of historical societies that includes counties like Monterey County, California. Easily passes (WP:BASIC) and (WP:RS). The article on the Carmel Valley Historical Society provides the history of the Carmel Valley, California including the Rumsen and Esselen tribes. The article highlights museum-like exhibits for the Carmel Valley Airfield, Carmel Valley Village, and the early pioneer Hatton family. The article also provides the society's goal to preserving, collecting, researching, and documenting of oral histories. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC) ←article creator[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage here. There are barely any hits even on GNews. Does not appear to be notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sourcing is either primary, trivial, or hyper-local. The piece about the museum opening is a standard press-release based community announcement type article. This is a run-of-the-mill society of which there are thousands in the U.S. WP:MILL. Does not pass WP:NCORP criteria for inclusion of organizations and companies. Historical societies don't have inherent notability merely because it exisrs, nor do they inherit notability from the associared people or events, (such as someone who is mentioned in an exhibit.) An alternative to deletion would be to redirect or merge to Carmel Valley, as this org does not need it's own separate article. Netherzone (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note to closing admin: The article creator is canvassing several other editors to "keep" and "not delete" this article. [4], [5],[6]. Netherzone (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a 9-year WP veteran of almost 200 AfDs, this was my first talk page solicitation. I was surprised and annoyed by the flippant response of the article's clueless creator after I called out their WP:CANVASSING. Typically in evaluating an AfD, I conduct a search for additional sources, and if I find RS, go for WP:HEY and revise the article to meet notability requirements. In this instance, however, while there are a few decent newspaper sources on the Carmel Valley History Center, there are only passing mentions of the Society. In my judgment there are not enough sources on the historical society itself to warrant this article: as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, "There's no there, there." — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, I was pinged and wp:canvassing was likely not followed properly but appears due to not knowing. That is not a reason to not objectively evaluate the article. IMO sourcing satisfies GNG which does not rule out local sources. Also they are somewhat synonymous with the building which I think would pass N:Geo. Also the topic and content is encyclopedic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsigned "canvassed" comment attached to my post. I already opened with noting that and also said there and here that it would not affect my evaluation. What is the point of saying "canvassed" ....to doubt the latter and deprecate my opinion? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP is the generally accepted practices for companies and organizations per numerous discussions on project and talk pages. This article wouldn't pass WP:AUD. IMHO, this input is foul since Greghenderson handpicked those who they felt were likely to cast a vote in their favor! Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of those interpretations (on which SNG to apply and that the SNG modifies/supercedes GNG) and generally agree with it, especially on profit-making businesses which I think is what people had in mind when creating the wording. I took that and the other noted factors into my "keep" and still recommend that. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed that it fails AUD. The lead paragraph of WP:ORG says, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) The Carmel Valley Historical Society is a non-profit association, but it does not qualify as an "educational institution". To prevent non-neutral promotional articles, WP:GNG is not enough for organizations, which are handled separately under WP:ORG. This article must therefore must meet the WP:AUD subsection of WP:ORG that says Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. I've looked pretty thoroughly for regional/statewide sources, but the article fails that notability criterion. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On North8000's talk page, the article's creator posted this We have spoken before about the Carmel Development Company Building and the Edward G. Kuster articles, and I know you are interested in California History. Please check out the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Valley Historical Society and add your 2 cents to keep the article. I think the article has merit and should not be deleted. Any help you can be provide would be appreciated. Thanks!. He also posted something very similar to several other users on wiki. I am uncertain about extent to which he canvassed outside of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was not to canvass but to see if other editors could speak up and save an article that I feel is worth keeping as the only Historical Scoiety in the Carmel Valley area. Canvassing is a new concept to me and I now know not to do it. However, it should distract from the merit of the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Greg Henderson specifically asked that North8000 vote K**P before changing his post after being called out for canvassing.[7] I think the closing admin take this canvassing into consideration, and also please consider reading the talk page of the article creator to understand the long time (over 10 year) history of COI, UPE and promotional editing. It seems that this article is part of a walled garden. Nor is this the first time canvassing took place as it also happened after numerous articles on the Henderson family and their associates were created by the same editor., so any claims that they did not know any better is questionable. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the background description on my talk page is not accurate. As far as I can tell my only interaction was that during NPP work I marked the two linked articles as reviewed and left one of my common complimentary notes on those and I never expressed the particular interest described. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously many hours of work have been put in over many years by this editor to create this article and a large number of connected articles and it is disappointing to now have all this questioned. Unfortunately, most of them consist of large amounts of WP:OR, and use local and self published sources, not to mention are not written with a WP:NPOV. I wish this was picked up/addressed much earlier. But for the purposes of this discussion, it seems to me the only thing that matters is WP:ORG, and specifically WP:AUD, which is not met. Melcous (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please look at the list of County and local societies. California only has three that are written. Now look at the two other ones that are written and you will see a similiar style. This one, the Carmel Valley Historical Society has WP:RS and follows the WP:SNG and WP:GNG guidelines. Don't delete it just because you have an issue with the editor. BTW, the Orange County Historical Society (Orange County, California) has WP:SPS and is shorter and less informational than my article. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But... there are other similar articles is usually not a good justification. If you find ones that do not meet NORG, AFD them. Graywalls (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than WP:Articles for deletion, wouldn't it be better to notify the author/editor, and give them a chance to improve it? Where is this desire to nuke them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs)

Comment I have new WP:SECONDARY's to support the article and its history. Both citations provide interpretation and synthesis of the of the facts regarding the opening of the center in 2009 and later the museum in 2013. You can read them at the article's Talk page for Request Edit B. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These Carmel/Pebble Beach/Monterey articles rely very heavily on hyper-local trivial coverage like the Carmel Pine Cone, which is a weekly publication with a circulation of 18,500. Melcous is correct that the article fails WP:ORG (aka WP:NCORP) and WP:AUD. Organizations and businesses have no inherent notability. What you are bringing to the table with the Monterey Herald is trivial coverage about a construction project and fundraising for the construction, such as Individuals and families pay $100 for a small tile and $250 for a larger one. Businesses pay $200 and $400. “If we sold 1,000 tiles, we”d have the money to finish the project,” Jones said. The society had sold 200 so far, he said. and And a rummage sale will be held later this month at Hidden Valley as a fundraiser, Jones said. It's obvious that it is a community advertorial piece, esp. since it concludes with: For information on how to support the history center, call 659-4338. This is PROMO, not journalism. Netherzone (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the WP:ORG it says, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The Carmel Valley Historical Society has 11 source citations, which is "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, that are both primary and secondary. Why would you want to delete an article that has already been reviewed, has 11 source citations, with coverage independent of the article subject? If we are truly an "encyclopedia," then we should allow the Carmel Valley Historical Society to belong to the List of historical societies. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find the comments above by User:North8000 to be persuasive. The WP:AUD requirement in WP:NCORP was passed with the intention of curbing the proliferation of paid (or at least promotional) articles on for-profit businesses. The same concerns really don't apply to historical societies which are not driven by the profit motive. Historical societies at their core are intended to promote research, learning, and education about our collective past -- a purpose entirely consistent with our goals here at Wikipedia. I am persuaded that application of WP:AUD to such historical societies is inconsisent with our core encyclopedic purpose. Of course, GNG/SIGCOV would still need to be met, but not the stricter AUD element. (On a separate note, and with a respectful nod to WP:OSE, none of the other 22 pages in Category:Historical societies in California are as well sourced as this one -- do we really want to delete content on these valuable educational institutions?) Cbl62 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the difference between profit vs non-profit is in how it is registered with the relevant tax authorities in the jurisdiction where it is located. There absolutely is plenty of nonprofit advert articles. Have a look at Habitat for Humanity Canada as an example. Graywalls (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just did my best to give input and will be happy with whatever result y'all decide. So what follows is just more "doing my best" discussion. There is a fundamental difference....the mission of one is to make money, the mission of the other is something else. I had considered a few things in addition to those expressed by Cbl62. An article on a profit making corporation is more likely to have maxed out (regarding sources etc.) because typically they tend to have somebody 'working the (Wikipedia) system whereas a non profit is more likely to have additional not-included sources. Also my take ( Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works ) that the notability system does factor in to what degree is the topic enclyclopedic and so I consider it to be legitimate to take that into consideration. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Carmel Valley Histocial Society has significant coverage in media at the regional level and is a member of the Conference of California Historical Society and the Carmel Chamber of Commerce. Mulitple independent and reliable sources are available. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GregmHenderson, which regional source(s) have significant coverage of CVHA, the association, rather than the Carmel Valley History Center, which it established and supports financially? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CVHA maintains memberships with several notable organizations, including the Conference of California Historical Society, the Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce, and the Monterey County Free Libraries. These affiliations offer extensive coverage of CVHA's local center and museum while also highlighting its resource base. Furthermore, CVHA enjoys partnerships with various institutions, such as the Carmel Valley Association, Carmel Valley Locals, California Revealed, and numerous others. Newspaper mentions of CVHA can be found in publications from Petaluma, Salinas, and Sacramento. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of the first three sources you listed, only the Monterey County Free Libraries had any references to CVHS that were not references to the Society's web page, and that only lists CVHS as the publisher of 10 of the 12 books listed. "Newspaper mentions" don't sound like significant coverage... — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citations have "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and is the main topic of the source material. Please see Carmel Valley Historical Society, Internet Archive, and Monterey County Weekly for more details. Historical societies like CVHS is an organization dedicated to preserving, collecting, researching, and interpreting historical information or items. Regional societies should not be dismissed simply because they lack the widespread recognition of larger state societies, such as the California Historical Society. It's important to note that CVHS operates within the Western United States and serves as a significant county-level society. Information about CVHS and its historical records for Carmel Valley, California should be readily available to anyone consulting an encyclopedia. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Carmel Valley Historical Society struggles to find permanent site for archive.No Place Like Home article gives signigficant coverage to CVHS. However, this listing contains info from CVHS's website, as does this listing. Not enough significan coverage, definitely not meeting WP:AUD, as the Monterey County Weekly is a small, local newpaper. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:40, 3 September 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 23:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Regan[edit]

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

As a soccer player, she is close to zero in terms of notability. I could not find a single GNG-qualified source about her soccer career to establish her notability. However, it seems that she has received coverage as a Los Angeles County firefighter. She is better known for being a firefighter than a soccer player, yet the article is about her being a soccer player. The next point I want to make is that she is not notable as a firefighter either. Being interviewed a couple of times due to being a female firefighter does not make her pass GNG. She has received coverage for being "one of 79 female firefighters in Los Angeles" here, here, and here. Not everyone interviewed by CNN (which is what I think most of the coverage stems from since it's the oldest interview I could find) becomes notable because of that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, United States of America, and California. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to have gotten some attention as a firefighter after retiring from soccer. WBUR in the article and this [8] seem to be enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does the attention as a firefighter really make her notable, though? I'm not so sure. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Regan passes WP:GNG as a firefighter. While Wake Forest Magazine is an Alumni newspaper for the relatively small Wake Forest University and is therefore probably not reliable, the combination of the WBUR piece and the CNN Business article, which has a lot of original content and doesn't really qualify as an interview in my view, is enough to showcase notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WNUR/CNN sources which show notability. Giant Snowman 13:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above and cited sources, she's also featured for both her professional soccer and firefighting careers in a section of the book Under the Lights and In the Dark: Untold Stories of Women's Soccer by Gwendolyn Oxenham (pps. 228–230). -75.164.167.40 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per the policy of WP:ATD-I, this nominator — who is an active new page reviewer and, assuming good faith, may simply not be familiar with ATD-I — is both allowed and encouraged to unilaterally draftify new articles, especially those fewer than 90 days old, without requiring AfD consensus as a valid alternative to deletion.

Incubation satisfies WP:ATD, allows time for potential collaborative improvement, allows for soliciting feedback via AfC, and automatically deletes the draft without requiring consensus if not edited for six months. Drafts are also not required to meet WP:GNG, and if questionable notability — not verifiability or reliability of sources — is the only concern, then draftification is the most appropriate action.

Particularly, per ATD, "The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input." This specific nomination admits potential notability and instead proposes deletion over content issues that could have been flagged and discussed on the Talk page, or in comments on a draftified article. Instead, the nominator made no effort to flag or improve the article before nominating. -75.164.167.40 (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Devonian Wombat's reasoning above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:13, 2 September 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 23:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arboretum du Rosay[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 18:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and France. Kadı Message 18:32, 27 August 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 23:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish conductors[edit]

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

Prodded twice, with rationale: This list is not substantial and would be better served as a category. I can find no other list of conductors which is nation-specific. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Music, and Denmark. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superfluous. Doesn't add anything (other than redlinks) that Category:Danish conductors (music) doesn't already provide. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my previous PROD. Uffda608 (talk) 09:29, 28 August 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 23:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton City Primary Care Trust[edit]

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

Defunct organisation, not particularly notable, no sources Elshad (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and ~~England~~. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 28 August 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 23:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warwickshire Primary Care Trust[edit]

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

Defunct organisation, not noteworthy at all to justify article, no sources Elshad (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources for this article.

Tintinthereporter226 (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 28 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wildstyle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced article, with no indication whatsoever of primary topic relevance. Glossary of graffiti#Wildstyle is sufficient to cover this topic. Recommend moving the current Wildstyle (disambiguation) page to the main title. 162 etc. (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's an entire chapter "Ornament as Armament: Playing Defense in Wildstyle Graffiti"[9] by Gabrielle Gopinath, p. 117-128 in Understanding Graffiti (2015) ed. by Troy Lovata and Elizabeth Olton. It's extensively discussed in the article "Graffiti" p. 336-338 by Pat Rafferty [10] in The Guide to United States Popular Culture (2001) ed. by Pat Browne and Ray Broadus Browne. Wildstyle is discussed on 10 different pages in Anssi Arte's Forms of Rockin': Graffiti Letters and Popular Culture (2015)[11], this book contains a number of footnotes to other sources. Please ping me if anyone thinks these academic sources are not sufficient. Jahaza (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza: The article, as it reads today, cites none of these sources. Since you appear to be knowledgeable about the subject, your help in improving the article would be appreciated. 162 etc. (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I wrote an article on pieces funnily enough the same day this got put up for deletion. Would be happy to merge it with that article as there's already a section on wildstyle. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 13:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jahaza and listed sources. As an aside, I would think that the sources being on the page would be secondary to the discovery of their existence, and if not used on the page (I haven't checked) then a morecites tag would now be more appropriate than a deletion nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tag has been on the article for over 6 years, with no apparent improvement since. 162 etc. (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but with Jahaza's newly discovered sources, detailed above, this AfD has done the job that the tag didn't do. Good AfD's tend to do that. If none of us are going to edit them in, and I don't really have that much interest in the topic, at least add them to the talk page and someone will get around to them. Since we now know they exist and will likely end up in the article, at what point does the AfD seem complete in serving what should be its purpose. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the existence of sources is what matters, not whether they're used in the article. 15:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

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 Draftified‎. (non-admin closure) AFC will take care of the draft, should be taken to speedy or MfD if needed (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Vannacci[edit]

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

db-a2, creator used a translator tool to copyedit it:Roberto Vannacci but failed to remove obvious elements that reads like "...obtained his commando licence (course 80/B).[1]" under biography section, and the article is unreferenced. Leaning towards DRAFTIFY if not delete. shelovesneo (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Roberto Vannacci? NotAGenious (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa the page must have got draftified while I was nominating, my mistake. shelovesneo (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, closing. NotAGenious (talk) 09:16, 28 August 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or go to WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carey Dorn[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has extensive third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: Could you please point out which sources specifically offer significant coverage? Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, at worst. AfD initiated two days after creation and while the article was being improved. Due to their career's timeframe, online search results might not be indicative of the subject's notability or lack thereof. Let the editors already working on the article deal with passing AfC instead of failing AfD. -Socccc (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Dwanyewest. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz: what’s your rationale for keeping? You are providing none, just like Dwanyewest, who did not provide any example of sourcing that passes GNG. The delete argument is currently stronger. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Vaurie: So coverage in Soccer America, CBC Sports, The New York Times and The Hartford Courant aren't credible sources to make this article notable? Dwanyewest (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: Could you please point out what sources specifically present significant coverage as per GNG? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - currently, keep arguments have not demonstrated that a single source qualifies the subject as passing GNG. Deletion arguments stand stronger as of now. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:GNG failure. The sources cited by "Keep" proponents above are almost exclusively passing mentions, which briefly mention Dorn's name as part of articles about the CyberRays as a whole. The only exceptions are primary sources associated with the CyberRays themselves, which also do not contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Dorn played in the first season of women's professional football in the United States, and she was a regular as the club won the league. I would've expected more coverage for a player with that background, but I'm not finding it (I'm only finding routine or superficial stuff like these: [12], [13]). Jogurney (talk) 21:33, 29 August 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 programs broadcast by Much#Exposed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exposed (Canadian TV program)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2018 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When this was first created in 2005, Wikipedia essentially conferred an automatic presumption of notability on any television series that was technically verifiable as existing, regardless of sourcing problems. That's long since been kiboshed, and replaced with having to get the series over WP:GNG on its sourceability — but there's no sourcing here, and nothing else of substance turned up on a WP:BEFORE search either. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Much#Exposed (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The television show is very close to passing the general notability guideline. It received a substantial review in The Hamilton Spectator. The other sources I found were less significant coverage, which is why I am supporting a redirect instead of "keep". The show aired in 2004, so there is a good chance that there is offline print coverage of the show.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article or to Much (TV channel). A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if additional significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Sources
1. Hutton, Emily (2003-02-10). "Sum 41 gets Exposed next on MuchMusic". The Hamilton Spectator. Archived from the original on 2023-08-27. Retrieved 2023-08-27.
  The article notes: "MuchMusic is ready to be Exposed. The television show Exposed premièred last week and we got a chance to learn a little bit of what Avril Lavigne has gone through the past year or so. The show is a look at the world beyond the celebrities and the lives of the rich and the famous, when they actually open up to the camera and say what's on their mind. Other stars that will be Exposed will be Sum 41, Shaggy, Swollen Members and Nick Carter. They'll talk with MuchMusic and give viewers insight into their lives. Each week there will be a different celebrity. The format is similar to Egos & Icons, so I decided to watch it to see if I was right. It turns out I was. The only difference was that Exposed was more like "a day in the life" and Egos & Icons was a collection of clips."
2. Less significant coverage:
  1. "K-Fed Gets A Text Message". CBS News. 2006-11-08. Archived from the original on 2023-08-27. Retrieved 2023-08-27.
    The caption notes: "Kevin Federline was at dinner while taping a scene from the MuchMusic reality show "Exposed" when he got several text messages. Jason Ford, a supervising producer for the network, told The Showbuzz that after receiving the messages Federline asked to stop taping and take a half-hour break."
  2. St. Germain, Pat (2006-11-25). "Extra". Winnipeg Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-08-27. Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "The morning after Britney dumped him, photos of a dejected K-Fed digesting the news at a dinner with MuchMusic staffers made the e-mail rounds. It's not pretty, but we're betting fans tune in the whole sordid scene on video as Fed-Ex clearly loses his appetite after getting a text message in the middle of his Much meal in Toronto. Jeer, cheer, indulge in good ol' schadenfreude with Exposed: Kevin Federline, on Ch. 46 at 8p.m."
  3. Alexander, Dave (2003-05-31). "MushMuzak: Enduring a 12-hour CanCon video-station marathon". Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-08-27. Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "7:30 p.m., Exposed Namugeni's "hangin" with Michelle Branch while the singer cruises Hollywood in her SUV, talking on her cell and shopping. Oh-oh! It looks like Michelle got the wrong custom-made cowboy boots! Watching this is like being lobotomized W with a weed whacker."
Cunard (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The show existed merely to provide 'guerilla PR' for record companies and it's doubtful anything about the interactions between host and artist outside what they said naturally wasn't filed down to the edges to be inoffensive as possible. It's a basic artist profile show, only with shaky cams and location shoots. This Nick Carter episode shows at the end that the record company provided the artist, and all of the sites visited were there in exchange for plugs. Nate • (chatter) 21:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Donaldd23 (talk · contribs), Bearcat (talk · contribs), and MrSchimpf (talk · contribs), would you be okay with a redirect to List of programs broadcast by Much#Exposed per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with a redirect as detailed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be perfectly fine. That's always a possible and acceptable AFD outcome, and doesn't really require my personal consent just because I technically said "delete" instead of "redirect" at the start of my own statement. Bearcat (talk) 11:14, 28 August 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 Assemblies of God schools. ✗plicit 14:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly of God Church School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and West Bengal. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Within reliable sources, I can only find passing mentions of this school (eg. [14]) or articles not relating to the school itself (eg. [15]), therefore I do not believe it passes WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Assemblies of God schools as an ATD, because there are multiple worldwide schools with this name; certainly the one in Kolkata would not meet WP:PRIMARY. Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Assemblies of God schools per Nate and per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 1 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graft (politics)[edit]

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

Delete or merge content with political corruption as a US English term for the same thing. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The concept of graft definitely passes GNG just from common use. There is also a significant semantic difference between graft and the general concept of political corruption, so I don't see merge as a great option. That said, this article does little to show that distinction. It also looks like every time a source is added, it gets deprecated for one reason or another. Draftify isn't an option, either, as there hasn't been anyone seriously interested in the article for years. There is still a raft of good source material on gScholar and gBooks if we could find editors interested in the subject. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced definition, if the article is subsequently WP:HEYed I have no problem with keeping it. SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Graft is discussed ad nauseum:

Public Plunder - A History of Graft in America, Department of Justice
Graft and Grafting: What are the Remedies?, American Journal of Sociology
Corruption in Cities: Graft and Politics in American Cities at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, National Bureau of Economic Research
Unsafe at the Top: China's anti-graft drive targets billionaires and bankers, The Guardian
As Graft Cases in Chile Multiply, a 'Gag Law' Angers Journalists, The New York Times

etc. etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 28 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomaz Ransmyr[edit]

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

The article has already been proposed for deletion three times:

6 March 2011
- No references.
3 April 2016‎
- "Both this and the Swedish Wiki have no better convincing signs of satisfying the applicable notability and my searches noticeably found nothing better at all; the current sourcing here is also not convincingly enough."
11 May 2022:
- "Poorly sourced articles to non-independent websites that has been tagged for 9 years for lack of citations."

No sufficient improvements have been made since. For example, its references still "do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources".

After more than a decade of very basic problems, as pointed out by several users during this time, it does not seem likely that they will ever be resolved. Caput Deleo (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the above mentioned Swedish Wiki article, because it has been deleted. Four times. Caput Deleo (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been considered to be worth keeping. Three times. 78.76.89.147 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deleted from svwiki once again last year (a language version with generally a lower notability treshold). Limited coverage in local press. Insufficient with respect to GNG. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has also been considered to be worth keeping. Three times. Links were to nation wide articles, international discography and filming in Sweden and the US. Seems the info was not correctly checked before deletion. 78.76.89.147 (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been considered to be worth keeping. Three times. Links were to nation wide articles, international discography and filming in Sweden and the US. Seems the info was not correctly checked before deletion. 78.76.89.147 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post the same thing multiple times. This page is about the enwiki article. If this subject is of personal interest to you, please consider not engaging any further, here or elsewhere. Caput Deleo (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any RS on the biographical information presented. Most of the items listed under "references" are not RS, or not relevant. I do not see away to bring this article up to WP standards fro a living person. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:57, 2 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wilkinson (composer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Of the 11 sources used, 3 merely mention Wilkinson without significant coverage. The other 8 do not even refer to him. I couldn't immediately find any sources with significant coverage. Large parts of the article fail verification or are completely unsourced. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have tidied up and removed outdated links and added more relevant citations and sources. Heliwig1 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what you added are again just trivial mentions. Please see WP:SIGCOV. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and references to work created and published by the composer now direct to articles at Yahoo! News, Wired, National Geographic, Rotten Tomatoes and more which are all listed here as Reliable/Perennial sources for Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Heliwig1 (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Heliwig1 needs to read SIGCOV, because none of the sources in the article qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 1 September 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 Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Maria of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

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

Biography article about a Brazilian person who was a descendant of the then/now-extinct Brazilian royal family. Details are purely genealogical. The interwikis seem to have been built on cross-wiki spam. I bring it for community evaluation. Sturm (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, France, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to/possible merge into Brazilian imperial family. For precedents dating as far back as 2020, see Special:Search/Orléans-Braganza prefix:"Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (without a merge since the present article is a biography with no indication of notability) to Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920) following the precedent of her brother. Pinging @Slgrandson: since I'm proposing a redirect to a different article. Rkieferbaum (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rkieferbaum: Alternative endorsed. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920) as an WP:ATD, as per her brother. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:15, 2 September 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian general elections in states[edit]

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

I don't see how this is different from Category:General elections in India by state or union territory. A sentence or two is allowed at the top of category pages for explanation -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the concern in the justification, see WP:NOTDUP. Lists and categories are complementary. Also Keep as the list clearly meets WP:NLIST. It is a recent creation that could be given some time to grow per WP:BEFORE.C.2, alternatively, possibly draftify or (WP:ATD-T) tag blank sections with ((expand section)) —siro χ o 10:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Until a better page can be crafted. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify - Not ready for mainspace. Stub. Unrefernced. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It’s not ready as written, but the subject has potential and should be given an opportunity to be rewritten before deleting. Go4thProsper (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on procedural grounds under both WP:RUSH and WP:BEFORE's C2, C3 and D1. If procedural close is not approved, I'd happy go with Draftify. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Changing my (implicit) delete !vote after reading some of the arguments here. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:08, 27 August 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. There is unanimous agreement in the discussion that this content should be removed from main space, with an even split between deleting the article moving it to draft space. Closing this as delete to make clear (per consensus) that the article in its current form is not ready for main space, but no objection to refunding the article for improvement in draft space. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raktabeej 2023[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Patently unready for mainspace. WP:ADMASQ. Fails WP:NFILM 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
draftify or delete not ready for mainspace, unformatted/unstyled, left in a PROMO state. —siro χ o 09:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Tintinthereporter226 (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: not ready for mainspace. ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 15:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify -

This draft or article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:

1. Planned films that have not begun production (principal photography or animation). These planned films do not satisfy film notability.
2. Films that are confirmed by reliable sources to have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability in terms of significant coverage. Mere mention of the start of production does not satisfy notability.
3. Films that have been released, whose notability is determined by reception and reviews, or a major notable award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

This film page must be evaluated based on general notability of production..

- The draft may be resubmitted, with Reception information, after the film is released. If it is resubmitted again before release (fill in the blank). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:07, 2 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adetokunbo Sijuwade[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. There is a minor claim to notability "He is the first child of his father and for a long time was seen as the heir to the throne" and he moved in elevated circles, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. This is his resumé rather than an article. He is a WP:ROTM businessman doing his job. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Apart from being "a prince" there's nothing presumably notable about him. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a professional profile of someone who happens to be a prince. WP:NOTLINKEDIN. If the individual is notable it requires TNT. —siro χ o 09:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not explain why the subject is biographically notable, probably because he isn't notable but is a run-of-the-mill businessman from a traditionally wealthy family. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not meant with the sources available (unless none that I am not aware of.). Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:10, 29 August 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!} 05:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in the Arab world[edit]

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

WP:UNSOURCED and failing WP:GNG since creation in 2007 (tagged as such since July 2010), and WP:OR in defining a region and listing a bunch of random facts or non-facts such as that Boghé is supposedly a "port or harbour" on the "Atlantic Ocean". As far as I can tell, Boghé (population: 42,759, in the Futa Tooro region where most people speak Wolof or Fula, not Arabic) is a town on a river, some 250 kilometres downstream, flows into the Atlantic Ocean. What this has to do with "transport in the Arab world", I have no idea. Maybe because Mauritania is one of the Member states of the Arab League, and you can use a river to transport stuff? It's such a stretch. (By that logic, we could create an article called Transport in the Turkic world and mention Nukus as an example, and that is being charitable). The entire article is like that. Maybe we could split off the "Airports" section and turn it into something like List of the busiest airports in the Arab League (by analogy with List of the busiest airports in the Nordic countries), and delete the rest? I would prefer a WP:TNT for that though. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe draftify? This seems like it could be a cohesive topic, but as it stands it's just so vague and unfocused. Needs a lot of work. I would not be opposed to a delete but I do think there's a rough idea of an article here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I'm thinking about splitting off the airports, but it would need to be draftified. Then again, I'm not willing to adopt such a draft, and Reywas92 already pointed out the Arab League does not appear to have a unified transport policy. There is a Sport policies of the Arab League, but that article has its own problems. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, even the Transport in the Arab world#Airports section is little more than a bunch of WP:REDUNDANTFORKs of articles which can also be found in Category:Lists of airports by country, e.g. List of airports in Saudi Arabia, List of airports in the United Arab Emirates. And they provide more information than just a list of names, so there is no added value to this section at all. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arab World or Arab League is more of a ethnopolitical construct than a geographic one, but there are no sources discussion the topic as w whole. It's not clear that the Arab League has a unified transport policy that would warrant an article. Something like Transport in the Middle East or Transport in North Africa could be appropriate, but when this is just unconnected lists of infrastructure that are available elsewhere, I don't see the point. Reywas92^Talk 16:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to rehash the same information time and again. We do not need such articles even by subcontinent. Reason is that people and goods travel between e.g. France and Germany (same subcontinent) as they travel between France and Italy (different subcontinent). For cultural groupings, such as the Arab world, Middle East, and Latin America, these articles make no sense at all! So a big NO also to draftifying. Moderator access to use content for proper continents -- sure. gidonb (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. By the way, France and Germany (same subcontinent) ... France and Italy (different subcontinent) is already a controversial statement as well. Germany is often grouped as "Central Europe" and France as "Western Europe" and Italy as "Southern Europe". Then again, you can group Italy and France as "Southwestern Europe" along with Spain, Portugal and Andorra, if you prefer. Or how about categorising Luxembourg as "Northern Europe" (I'm not kidding)? Not last and not least, even the Netherlands can officially scientifically be grouped as "Central Europe" (or actually "Middle Europe") if you're talking about flora; here was I thinking all my life that I lived in Western Europe! It's all arbitrary and it depends on who you ask. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nothing I said is controversial. These are the WP conventions. Countries are human geographies, as are taxonomies of countries. gidonb (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move/rename to Transport in the Arab League. We have already debated at nauseam about the definition of "Arab" which at this point seems to be a philosophical question that needs to be debated in a general page to develop consensus that can be applied on other pages concerning Arabs. I disagree with the charahctarisation of "Arab" as a construct; I'd recommend going through the lead in Arabs, and the rest of the article if you want to get into the weeds. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider rename suggestion that was the last opinion offered. Of course, this requires a Keep decision first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK, anything useful this article covers is already mentioned at "Transportation in X country" articles, and the not-useful stuff consists of an indiscriminately presented list of random regional infrastructure proposals that have no specific connection to the "Arab World" anyway. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:59, 28 August 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 Angika. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anga (region)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per closing admin remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anga (region). Mikeanand (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, Bihar, and Jharkhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, this is disappointing. I guess draftification will not be an option in this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anga(region) page should be accepted as a seperate region from Mithila as it is, from ancient till modern times. The the deletion nominations are from a particular based political associations which are from Wikipedia Mithila 2409:408A:158F:D384:DD37:55FE:C4DB:CC06 (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted, In this Afd debate I request you not to delete the pg. Agama Triptika source 6 has also mentioned it as a seperate region. And the Hindi newschannels are also from the same country and a national-level newspaper such as Dainik Jagaran and Hindustan has also published Anga or Ang Pradesh as a seperate region.if you dont know hindi you can translate and see. 2409:408A:158F:D384:DD37:55FE:C4DB:CC06 (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could the nom please expand on the deletion rationale. The last AfD is a mess, and the immediate move out of draft space is... brave. But what are the policy reasons for deletion? Pinging Mikeanand Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy:, Good morning. Most of the sources in the article point either to the language Angika or the historical region Anga, both of which are notable. However, the sources used for the "modern Anga region" fail WP:RS. There isn't much in Google/Books either, most of which have been used for wp:or. I believe the article needs to removed from mainspace for failing WP:GNG. Mikeanand (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be draftified again so the question is going to be whether it meets WP:GEOLAND. If it does, it is presumed notable. If not then it will have to be a delete (with consideration of salt owing to the way it was rushed out of draft space). I have some reading to do here before I can express an opinion, but to confirm then: (1), it is not a legally recognised name for the region? (2) are there reliable secondary sources that refer to the region by this name now, even without legal recognition? and (3) I see the Angika language was spoken in Bihar. Was the territory of the language formerly known as Anga? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: Well, to put it straight forward, it fails WP:GEOLAND. It is not a legally recognised name for the region. There was a territory called "Anga" in the history, which already has a separate article, Anga. Angika is named after the historical territory of Anga, however, there are no reliable sources to establish the notability of a modern day Anga (region). Thank you.— Mikeanand (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy the different books such as Agama Triptika have recognised it as a seperate region referring to Anga Lipi 's region. Biharpro7252 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy Well It passes WP:GEOLAND
The answer is neither yes nor no.

Yes It is recognised as a seperate region in Modern times.the sources are ABP News which is a national media channel which still shows it as a seperate modern region of Bihar during any coverage on BIhar. Its a common thing in Bhagalpur , Munger and parts of purnea division territory of Anga as popular national hindi newspapers such as Dainik Jagran,Hindustan , Prabhat Khabar have always published it as Anga region hindi ang kshetra.Shreyasi Singh a national level shooter Commonwealth games champion has said in an interview Anga as her region referring to guiness book of world record And the National party BJP in the region have always termed it as a seperate region.The local MLAs and MPs have also recognised the region as Anga.

Yes ,the answer is references are there . Outlook.com an Indian weekly magazine and all the competitive books have recognised it as a language of anga region. sources are there in languages .I will try to upload more.

Biharpro7252 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is clear as mud :) So to question 1, the answer cannot be neither yes nor no. It is one or the other. It is a legally recognised region or it is not. From my reading thus far, I am coming down on the "not" side there.

Question 2 has contradictory statements, but what matters is the sources. On the page there are a few useful sources, and one of these is [16] which has:
Angika is the local dialect and is spoken by the majority. It is an Indo-Iranian language of the Anga region of India, an approximately 58,000 km2 area that falls within the contemporary states of Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal.
(page 272). The book is published by Springer, and has good editors but is not on the subject of geography. It is about education practice. But it is a WP:RS I believe. References in [17] on pages 95-98 appear to be primarily historical.

The answer to question 3 is, by general agreement and per that second source, yes there was a historical region called Anga which encompassed the extent of the Angika language. Yes we have an Angika article, but that is about the language, and not the territory. But then we run into a problem, because the linguistic extents of different languages overlap. So an informally defined area as the extent of the Angika language is not a clearly defined region. In any case this article purports to be about a modern Anga region or Ang Pradesh.

I am not convinced the article is well targeted. We have some evidence that the area of extent of the Angika language is still known as Anga. That makes sense, but it is not a legally defined name. Indeed, the area is within other specific regions. I have not been able to find enough on this to make this a clear keep, so at this stage, I am thinking it should be a merge to Angika which article has a territory section, in which we can say that the territory in which Angika is spoken is known as Anga or Ang Pradesh. If I find more sources, or more are presented, I would be willing to reconsider this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Delete per Mikeanand and Fylindfotberserk in the previous AfD (linked in the nomination).~~ /I am myself unsure about what could be merged, if anything, but I believe those editors who say that there is some content good for merging/ I'd particualrly like to point out that I can't verify that this is, as it is claimed, a geographical region as in a region that is bounded by natural features. About "historical region", I couldn't find any confirmation that a modern "Anga region" or "Ang Pradesh" or "Anga Pradesh" contain, as is claimed, includes the territory of the Santhal Pargana division, for example. According to our article, in 2011, ~10 percent of the people in that division spoke Angika. Yet the article seems to argue that the Anga region is the "territory" where Angika is spoken. We could construct a modern "geographic and historical region" like this for any ancient or medieval Indian state, and we'd have layers upon layers of such "regions" that overlap, intersect etc. See: Category:Historical Indian regions. Each has its own legacy and some residual, notional, presence in the modern day, but we should not make modern mirror images of these articles. —Alalch E. 20:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Sirfurboy. From what I understand, Anga is not a legally distinct area. It's just where Angika speakers live. However, language and culture go hand in hand so this is a point of contention. As mentioned in Angika#Relationship_to_Maithili, there is tension between speakers of Maithili (majority language) and Angika (minority language). Maithili speakers have made calls for a separate state (Mithila). Judging by how this usually goes, there is probably some level of irredentism in saying Anga exists as a region of its own for Angika speakers. On the other hand, there may be a case of Angika erasure. Either way, I feel these claims would make great additions to Angika and Anga (if properly sourced). Looking through some talk page history, it seems the article author (Biharpro7252) believes they are targeted by editors who are "all are from a specific political group and always target a specific language and page". Specifically, I think they are referring to Mikeanand who is on WikiProject Mithila. It seems this feud between Angika and Maithili speakers goes a bit deeper. Recently there were a few vandalistic AfD requests by user Proverealbiharhistory who also seems to promote Angika and dislike Maithili culture (they requested to delete Maithili_language and Mithila_(region)) --Klausklass (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ya you are right. Mithila too is associated with Maithili.same ways Anga is associated with Angika. There is always some tensions between the both. I too support Anga as my cultural region. 2409:408A:2C44:1B7A:0:0:AA8A:FC0A (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dislike mathili . Mathili and angika is sister language ( same origin) but both are different.official angika is classified as a direct of Hindi and one of addition official language of jharkhand . Few years ago Some maithili start claiming angika as a direct so that came make mathili state .

If we can't create anga region Wikipedia page soon anga history , anga culture , Angika language will Died . You become one of kill of a

historical language. —Proverealbiharhistory (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I too can totally understand you. Biharpro7252 (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so an editor with a somewhat partisan name, Proverealbiharhistory, urges us to either keep this article as a piece of advocacy for Anga causes or somehow share responsibility for cultural oblivion? I think that’s the most ludicrous AfD rationale I’ve ever read. Mccapra (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sirfurboy's analysis and suggestion, unless further sources are found. We might also consider updating the hatnote on Anga —siro χ o 09:48, 27 August 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. I have mixed feelings about this closure. The clear consensus is to Keep this article but even some of its defenders admit that the article is in poor shape and needs work. I see a good faith edit on the article to trim down a part of it but it will need more effort from those who are advocating Keeping it. AFD is not for cleanup but please follow through and spend some time cleaning this one up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz (Transformers)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doubt if this meets WP:GNG, poorly written, long, and mostly fancruft. It's Blaze Fielding all over again. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Toys. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~Keep: setting aside outright fan sites there is some spammy stuff on notable sites at least:

-https://www.cbr.com/transformers-rise-of-the-beasts-mirage-stole-look-from-jazz/

-https://bleedingcool.com/games/transformers-jazz-autobot-statue/

-https://screenrant.com/why-jazz-died-in-transformers-movie/

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote updated to Keep. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep is no better than redirect to list of transformers characters with jazz in it. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bleedingcool is just a fan piece about some fan sculptue. The other sources are borderline. I'd like to see someone use the to at least try to stub a reception section. Perhaos this fictional character is notable - perhaps, note, I don't say they are - but the current article is terrible. AFDNOTCLEANUP, yes, but WP:TNT is an option too. My vote is for weak redirect to the list of transformers, because the current article is a terrible piece of WP:FANCRUFT that has next to zero encyclopedic content. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We all know who the culprit is. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Culprit? Creating an article in good faith (wich many seem to agree passes GNG) does not make on fit for a call out.★Trekker (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. GNG is met, AfD is not for cleanup, which can be accomplished without redirection, merging, or deletion. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not cleanup. Please note that most of these older transformers articles cover multiple related toys and characters in a multi-decade multimedia franchise with various pieces of art focusing on each individual character. Most or all of them will meet GNG on their own. But due to their nature, cleaning up the transformers articles will take some time and effort from some dedicated editors willing to research, verify, cite, copyedit, and indeed seek consensus on where information should exist. WP:TNT is not going to help the situation until such an effort is underway. —siro χ o 04:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, while true, "AfD is not for cleanup" is not an argument for this subject's notablity (beyond pop culture). But not a strong deletion statement is given either so I'm relisting this discusion. If you could highlight, out of all of this overly long article, sources that do establish GNG, that would make this closure more straight-forward.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to relisting comment. I'm honestly not surprised these articles aren't better referenced. It's not fun wading through everything given the number of iterations and the amount of advertising for each of them. I have zero doubt this and other similar original transformers characters all meet GNG individually, they just occupy a very different place in the cultural zeitgeist that is neither pure cruft nor academic. Here's a bit of a refdump to get started with. The Bellemo guide has sigcov of most of the original toys, including this one [18]. Here's a different bleedingcool piece on a different incarnation of the toy. [19], Here's a comicbook.com article on yet another iteration of toys[20]. Here's some more brief coverage from comicbook.com[21] that gives an interesting reception of the original character Jazz was one of the coolest characters in the G1 Transformers cartoon in the '80s - an early harbinger of the hip-hop culture to come, who had his own distinct swagger and then contrasts with the later movie character. Here's some coverage of the character as a car from a car website [22]. For this character in particular, there even seems to be some coverage in Jazz Times [23] though Google books snippet view is failing me and the microfiche on archive.org is not working for me. —siroχo 10:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, as it's been archived with the Cliffjumper discussion (another frustrating aspect of this sort of bulk nomination is how fractured the discussion gets) but as a general note Transformers looks like a highly tricky subject to write a good article on. I've been down the rabbit hole a bit with the Transformers Wiki (which is a bit fanboy and a bit sneery) and while they're obviously beholden to a different set of standards in terms of sourcing it's actually maintained and researched pretty well. But I digress. As far as I can tell, Jazz is: -
- A character in the cartoon and the old film
- A similar but different character in Marvel comics
- A similar but different character in the new films
- A similar but different character in a newer cartoon on Cartoon Network
- A similar but different character in newer comics by IDW
- At various points a similar but different character in lots of less prominent media
- And a frequent source of merchandise, some of which is directly related to the various fictional characters and sometimes not
- ...and all of this seems to feed on each other as and when, so you get a toy of the movie character that looks like the cartoon character, or a new toy is referenced in a comic, or a piece of media adds additional character traits, et cetera.
Basically it's really easy to see how a page on any character can get messy very quickly without some sort of semi-official template being set out. And it's easy to see why redirecting to a single bulk list is a dumb "wash our hands of this" step like so much of what happens in AfDs. What would Jazz's entry on that list entail? About the only thing universal is he's an Autobot who turns into a sportscar (as far as I can tell).

I'd be up for redirect or merge the second someone who was actually going to do the work puts forward a solution as to how to implement it. In the meantime I reiterate Keep, as I feel sources are out there, they're just not immediately evident on Google, and those there suggest the character is worth a redirect minimum. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this character passes GNG, with content farms being shown as the only major mentions. There has been no improvement since the article was kept 13 years ago and it's likely it will continue to be a fancrufty mess forever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the best known Transformer characters, SIGCOV exists such as the Screenrant source mentioned above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And he makes the 100 Greatest Cartoon Characters In Television History. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. That book seems like fancruft. But it is technically reliable. Sigh. Seriously, you can publish a book about "100 fictional characters I like" in a reliable publishing house...? Apparently, yes, you can. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft, and no, a Screenrant article does not suffice to guarantee notability per GNG. God gave us Wikia for a reason. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies Right. But take a look at my comment above. I don't know what to make of that source, seriously... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, you mean that book? That's pretty awful--I leafed through it, and it's no more than a coffee table book. Screenrant as a publication is also fishy: the About Us and other pages just scream fancruft and commercialism. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call the book mention arguably SIGCOV. I don't think just one book mention is enough to save the character though. If there were numerous sources similar to it, maybe. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as yes he is one of the best known Transformer characters, which I say warrants a keep. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a popular or a well known character doesn't mean the character is automatically notable. Valnet sources lile ScreenRant doesn't help its notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above keep rationales.★Trekker (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the arguments above. BOZ (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on. It's "pop culture", sure, but sheesh, meets GNG, one of the most famous Transformers. AFD is not cleanup, and even if the article was "cleaned up", an article about a kid's TV show character is just naturally going to attract weak accusations of fancruft, but which are really WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, but completely support cutting down the in-universe content. Articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, primary sources. Articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works; summaries of these works need to be concise in comparison to being treated in an encyclopedic manner. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:42, 31 August 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!} 05:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W21DA-D[edit]

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

Another short-lived, now-defunct HC2/Innovate LPTV with no local content, almost no operational history (the periods of silence seemed to eat up most of the time it was licensed), and undoubtedly no significant coverage (or any, really) to satisfy the GNG. (Surprisingly, this article was not part of that failed bulk AfD, which included numerous stations much like this one, from earlier this year.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable waste of the public bandwidth, transmitter crews and the FCC's time. Nate • (chatter) 21:28, 27 August 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 Wiz Khalifa discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Ya (mixtape)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The current single source in the article, Hypebeast gives just four sentences to this mixtape (the other three sentences is on Khalifa in general, whereas the final sentence is about another unrelated tour) and is not SIGCOV. My BEFORE search found non-SIGOV sources: a 6-sentence coverage here, of which only 5 sentences are about the mixtape (the other sentence is about an unrelated tour), this, which is also just 6 sentences, with the final two sentences about Wiz's High School Reunion Tour, this, with 9 non-quote sentences (even fewer about this mixtape as a few sentences are also about Wiz got his fans ready with a visual for “Close Frame"), this, with only 5-sentences about this mixtape and the rest being simple listings on unrelated tour dates, and other non-reliable user-generated reviews. Overall, I don't see how GNG is met, and would BLAR this to Wiz Khalifa. However, another bold action (draftifcation) was contested, so I am bringing this to AfD instead. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiz Khalifa discography. If there's hardly any references talking about the tape and several tour dates unrelated to it, as well as no charts or critic reviews, I feel like redirecting it. You could draftify it, but what's the point in doing that when it probably'll never meet WP:NALBUM. DaCrashy aka AJB (TALK 2 ME)(Everything I Did) 02:48, 1 September 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!} 02:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Kalra[edit]

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

Seems to fail NPROF, ANYBIO and GNG, lacks any reliable independent sources and my BEFORE search didn't find anything which helped this pages case. Furthermore, the subject appears to be sending paid editors at the page to "improve" it, leaving it a mess of promo and fluff. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 02:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and United States of America. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 02:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is pretty terrible: mostly a self-promotional mess with only a couple of references that aren’t related to the subject or their place of work. As for notability, I don’t think the subject meets WP:NPROF even with fellowship in the American College of Physicians and American College of Cardiology, and I could find no other sigcov. Sgubaldo (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the highest cited articles where the author is either first or last author are reviews; the highest cited research article where he is a first author has 55 citations. I think this does not pass WP:NPROF#1; also the article is clearly promotional and would need to be rewritten. --hroest 21:52, 31 August 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.