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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Tremont[edit]

Sonia Tremont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned six caps for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested above. No GNG-passing sources to be found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman
• Redirect - Fails GNG; redirect to the above mentioned article would be the best option, IMO. Ekdalian (talk) 06:54, 5 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!} 23:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education[edit]

Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

NSCHOOL is essentially irrelevant now, so schools are required to meet GNG. Delete for lack of notability and being an ad page. Per this talk post it was created for promo purpose. Graywalls (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and India. Graywalls (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unless there are non-English references that are in-depth, there is nothing I found that shows how this would meet notability guidelines. It exists, but the references are mainly directory listings. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails WP:NCORP. Per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ramakrishna_Mission_Brahmananda_College_of_Education, this article was written by a person affiliated with the school for purposes of advertisement/ religious propaganda. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GNG failure and everything above. NotAGenious (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not much available on the internet apart from listings Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP—TheWikiholic (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and has COI issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seawolf35 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 6 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!} 23:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique Houtkamp[edit]

Angelique Houtkamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This subject fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. This impression emerged after I removed all references that didn't meet WP:RS and/or violated WP:BLP/WP:BLPSPS. What remains is: 1) an interview (still BLPSPS content but an unrelated publisher); 2) a work whose depth in coverage of the subject I'm unable to verify; 3) scant mention; and 4) slightly less-scant mention, but in a dissertation/thesis paper, not what a BLP usually hangs its hat on. There are not multiple independent sources giving significant coverage of her on which to base an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Visual arts, and Netherlands. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Qwrk (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And thank you for referring this article to WP:BLPN in the first place. I created this AfD discussion in agreement with your comment there, and as a courtesy. If you'd like to contribute to a decision on whether to Keep or Delete this article, I hope you'll consider leaving an additional comment with your recommendation in bold text. I find your position clear. But this is the forum where stating it matters. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article in the Guardian is primary, the magazine from down under is not independent. Our text is also primary. gidonb (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The way this article was set up - before your great edits - it had the tone and choice of words that clearly showed this is a self-promotional write-up with many beefed-up exaggerations. "Her personal life was just as interesting and diverse." [hahaha!] Clearly a piece to show off, "here, look at me, I'm on wikipedia!" Qwrk (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read WP:HOLE? JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good one and new to me. Thank you! Qwrk (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article does not speak for itself in explaining why she is notable, and a review of the sources does not support general notability.

Excellent analysis. Thank you especially for providing a characterization for the second source, which I could not access. JFHJr (㊟) 17:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG, as per the above analysis by Robert McClenon. Ekdalian (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 6 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!} 23:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yosmeli Cabarroca[edit]

Yosmeli Cabarroca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject has earned at least two caps for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no GNG-passing sources to be found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:44, 4 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 04:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus.AI[edit]

Abacus.AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP, no substantive content from independent reliable sources about the company itself. Sources are all basically press releases/announcements about funding or surface-level commentary about machine learning/AI. Scientific citations all come from people from the organization itself. Citing (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but modify. The sources in the article are reliable, but the article has an overly promotional tone. Salsakesh (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to be written from the sources. As noted below, it's only routine coverage of funding rounds. Every single non-primary source is some variety of "[Company] has raised $X million." Citing (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When you ignore the primary source citations to published papers (which don't count toward establishing notability) there are only a handful of tech industry sources that mainly focus on the funding rounds raised. This is pretty routine coverage and isn't really significant enough to establish notability compared to the thousands of startups that get created and die or get acquired every year. Steven Walling • talk 01:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Steven's source analysis. My own research only turned up this ZDNet article as significant coverage, but it isn't enough to meet WP:GNG on its own. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 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!} 22:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AIPCC Energy (Edo Refinery)[edit]

AIPCC Energy (Edo Refinery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable: the company, while involved in significant industrial activities, doen't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (there are not enough independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the company in significant detail). LusikSnusik (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable, lack of notable sources. Salsakesh (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Edo refineries (there are two). I don't find that AIPCC is notable, but the refineries are. There's a fair amount of information about it, (some of which doesn't mention AIPCC) and the refineries are a big issue in Edo state.[1] Larataguera (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 6 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 merge‎ to Time projection chamber. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Matter Time Projection Chamber[edit]

Dark Matter Time Projection Chamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We have quite some academic papers talking about this experiment/device. See [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I think those are some sigcov from reliable sources, and I am inclined to keep. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree with keeping the page, as there seem to be references available, they just haven't been added in. Madeleinehales (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) :)[reply]

• merge with dark matter. The experiment is real but just one of many and readers would be better served by seeing the content in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk • contribs)

• Hello Anon, that is also a valid point. In that sense, I think it will be better to merge with Time projection chamber as an example of these kinds of facilities. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Time projection chamber is a better choice, with a sentence in dark matter linking.

Johnjbarton (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess sources brought up in this discussion and also the possibility of a Merge (although 2 different Merge targets are suggested).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mates, it seems that there is enough coverage by scholarly articles. [9]. So, Keep. Cinadon36 19:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same relisting rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would support a merge. Time projection chamber seems better, with a mention at dark matter. UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 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!} 22:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Foote Wood[edit]

Chris Foote Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a politician and writer, and added some references, but I don't think there is substantial coverage or that he meets WP:NPOLITICIAN. His elected roles have been as a district councillor, a county councillor, member of a regional assembly and on the European Committee of the Regions. Coverage is at the mention level and I don't think it meets WP:GNG. His biography of his sister, Victoria Wood, received coverage but this looks like WP:BLP1E without lasting significant coverage. Article has been tagged with Notability since 2021. There was a previous deletion discussion in 2012, with several !votes of "weak keep" and an outcome of no consensus. Tacyarg (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He hasn't held any role that would be "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, but has not been shown as the subject of nearly enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having done quite a bit of work on this page recently, it would be a shame personally to see it deleted, given the number of citations added to a previously largely unreferenced section. That said, the citations don't necessarily confer notability, although we do have some pages for perennially unsuccessful candidates for office. So I'm on the fence with this one. OGBC1992 (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - marginal case but he seems to be something of a local celebrity, there are quite a lot of results when searching for the subject. - Indefensible (talk) 16:12, 31 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!} 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete failed candidate and notability seems inherited from his sibling after source review. SportingFlyer T·C 14:40, 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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article despite it's sketchy origins as the creation of an LTA. That fact was barely touched on in this discussion which focused more on sources and notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of the Spirit Ministries[edit]

Sword of the Spirit Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I deleted this article per G5, because it was almost entirely written by two socks of David Eribe, a prolific LTA with no regard for our content or sourcing policies, who regularly creates batches of socks to spam Wikipedia with bad articles about Nigerian religious people and groups. An editor reached out to be on my talk page to point out that it had survived an AfD discussion, which I had overlooked when I originally deleted it. That original discussion was tainted by contributions from two more of Eribe's socks, so I think the best thing to do is bring it here and thrash it out again.

Based on the original discussion, it does look like the subject might be notable; I haven't examined the sources mentioned in the discussion, but if they do offer substantial coverage of the subject then it is clear that an article could be written about it. The article as it stands, however, is primarily based on primary and affiliated sources; it has issues with the prose as well, and generally needs a going over by a competent editor to bring it into line with our standards. I think the best thing to do would be delete this article per a mix of WP:G5 and WP:TNT, and allow another editor in good standing to write a new article from scratch using proper sourcing. The second choice would be to strip out all the unreliable sourcing and reduce it to a stub that is supported by whatever reliable sourcing was mentioned in the AfD and can be accessed.

Pinging non-blocked contributors to the original AfD, and the closing admin as a courtesy: Oaktree b, SomethingForDeletion, Central and Adams, Suriname0, Pharaoh of the Wizards and Liz. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete I'm still not seeing notability, beyond confirmation they exist as a religious group. Sourcing seems to be confirmation of existence only. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak keep or Draftify Since there are currently two reputable sources in the article (being Tribune Online and The Guardian Nigeria), I might be able to find other sources in books, newspapers, etc. But, at the very least it would end up being a stub. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While those sources are reliable, neither looks to provide WP:SIGCOV to me: they're both passing mentions. The book source is a little better (a few sentences about the activities of the org), but we would need additional in-depth sources to meet WP:GNG. Please let us know if you can find other WP:SIGCOV! Suriname0 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This is clearly a notable church. There are tons of sources on GScholar. I added three that had PDFs linked to so far, and will add more soon. Central and Adams (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you be willing to go through the article and remove any content that cannot be supported by the quality sources that you find? Girth Summit _(blether) 08:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You can tell which edits I'm willing to make by looking at the edits I make. If you see something you don't like about the article edit it yourself. Central and Adams (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for updating the article! Do you mind identifying 1-2 sources beyond the Brouwer book that you think consitute WP:SIGCOV that you think I should look at? When I looked at Google Scholar hits during the previous AFD, most seemed like passing or incidental mentions. Suriname0 (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - I looked through the sources again, and they continue to all look like passing mentions to me. I think Francis Wale Oke looks a little closer to notability. Please ping me if sources are identified with more than 1 or 2 sentences of coverage. Suriname0 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote updated to delete; no sources with WP:SIGCOV were identified in this discussion. Suriname0 (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that this denomination is mentioned in books by R. Hackett, R. Marshall and S. Brouwer, which are authoritative on Nigerian Pentecostalism, make very clear for me that this topic meets notability criteria. I have also noticed a few paragraphs on this denomination in a book by T. Falola (probably the most prominent Nigerian academic on Nigeria history at the moment) that I'm going to try to get access to and add as a reference. --DonCamillo (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear, none of those mentions are WP:SIGCOV, right? The mention in the Falola book you added is literally a passing mention in a footnote. Suriname0 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This isn't exactly a WP:HEY in terms of improvement but this subject appears to both exist and be sizable enough to be considered notable given what has been added. With some consideration for systemic bias, smaller Nigerian religious groups should not be expected to enjoy the same SIGCOV indexing that many minor denoms in the US have. Creation by an LTA does raise questions but the issues resultant from their disruption seem resolved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think the sources currently in the article meet GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  15:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TimothyBlue which sources specifically do you think contain WP:SIGCOV, or are you perhaps arguing that the topic meets WP:GNG without one or more sources containing WP:SIGCOV? Thanks for clarifying! Suriname0 (talk) 16:53, 7 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. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WarpOS[edit]

WarpOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. A mess of low quality references. Fails WP:GNG - UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources in the Further reading section clearly show notability of the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pavlor Which of all those sources are RS with extensive coverage of the topic? Cinadon36 20:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For this purpose, I would choose:

  Drummond, Richard (July 1999). "WarpUp 4.0". Amiga Format. No. 125. Future Publishing. p. 51. ISSN 0957-4867. (full page review)

  Krenželok, Petr (January 1998). "WarpUp your PowerUp?". Amiga Review (in Czech). No. 33. Atlantida Publishing. pp. 7–11. ISSN 1211-1465. (about the PowerUP vs WarpUP controversy)

  Not in the article: Amiga Furture, May/June 2015, issue 114, Classic Reflections Part 21 Haage & Partner (history of the company behind WarpUP/WarpOS)

  Other sources in the article cover mostly the WarpUP vs PowerUP controversy (Dream, AmigaNews), however, AmigaNews extensively cites press-releases by Haage and Partner or phase5 and I have only excerpts of the Dream article.

  There may be far more sources of this kind in the various local Amiga magazines (I didn't find Italian or German magazines online), because PowerPC/PowerUP/WarpUP was the Big Thing in the world of Amiga back in the late 1990s. Pavlor (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:41, 24 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!} 23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources in WarpOS#Further reading and the 3rd criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion.  // Timothy :: talk  15:13, 7 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!} 22:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alen Harbas[edit]

Alen Harbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - could only find significant coverage from primary sources, which does not pass GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Maybe if he gets a top tier professional career he would be notable but not now. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 7 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!} 22:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Rubio[edit]

Piper Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR for having only made significant contributions in one (not multiple) notable films. That film would be Five Nights at Freddy's. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and California. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - possibly WP:TOOSOON and probably does not meet WP:BLP. - Indefensible (talk) 06:20, 7 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!} 22:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Bogaerts[edit]

Rudi Bogaerts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, Photography, and Belgium. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for People. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, despite being a translation, this article is basically a professional profile and WP:NOTLINKEDIN. The article itself doesn't establish notability. BEFORE shows a couple passing references in books and web, but nothing that establishes notability of the subject. —siroχo 22:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I too am leaning towards d*elete, but will hold off on !voting after I see what might be out there for sourcing. I think it is a COI or UPE creation for two reasons, 1) the promotional quality of it per Siroxo's observation and 2) because the professional, posed profile photo of the person was uploaded by the article creator as their "own work" so it is clear that there is a connection between the artist and the article creator, or perhaps it is an autobiography. While that is not necessarily a reason for deletion, it could mean that claims (esp. unsourced) are puffed up. Netherzone (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Well, it did not take long to find that there are not reliable sources that we would normally find for an artist, such as reviews of exhibitions in art magazines or newspapers, chapters in art history books or journal articles, works in the permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries, and the like. What I did find a lot of is social media where it seems this artist is active in promoting themselves, as well as a few primary sources and user-submitted content. He does not pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG for notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. I am not finding any RS on the subject. I took a look at the images of work included in the article and have nominated them for deletion over at the commons. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manifold (prediction market)[edit]

Manifold (prediction market) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable. There are no references that show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The New York Times reference is to a podcast where the site is mentioned, it is not an article. The Vox article does not mention Manifold, just provides a link to it. Jorge.a.alfaro (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jorge.a.alfaro (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Manifold has 95000 backlinks from 1400 domains. It is rapidly growing. Here is some data on search traffic and search engine positioning: https://github.com/JeroenDeDauw/JeroenDeDauw/assets/146040/c0c9d097-82e2-4e84-87f1-0f87deed185f. All data from Ahrefs.

It received millions in funding from multiple sources. It is well known in EA circles.

I think Manifold is notable. Not a great experience contributing to Wikipedia if this kind of content gets deleted because a podcast is not an article. Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen, articles have to meet our notability requirements using reliable sources. These requirements are spelled out in WP:CORP and WP:GNG for notability and WP:RS and WP:V for reliable sources. We have these rules to help ensure article reliability - a never-ending struggle here. This means our coverage of new companies is always going to lag Google hits and the blogosphere; that’s a tradeoff we accept.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your explanation and the reasoning, even though I don't like the result of policy in this case. Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - At this point, I don't think that Manifold is currently notable, but given the recent number of references in reliable sources, I expect it will be in the near future and this article can be expanded upon in Draft space in the meantime. There are a number of trivial references in reliable independent secondary sources (Vox, NYT, Financial Times), but I'm not aware of any significant ones. The New York Times podcast mention is certainly trivial, even though it is reliable. The only significant coverage comes from the Hanania podcast, but it's unclear whether that is independent (Hanania is financially involved with the site) or reliable.

For disclosure, I'm a user of Manifold. Manifold has some prediction markets on whether this article will exist (and not be deleted) - [10] and [11] - but I don't have any stake in those markets and don't see myself as having a COI. However, I suspect that some other editors here will, which they should disclose.

Gbear605 (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Manifold users betting on this article’s retention, take a look at those requirements I cited to Jeroen above and then compare them with the article - that’s the best way to predict the outcome of this discussion.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those not playing the Manifold markets, the 2 prediction markets for this article haven't moved a lot over the period from before the article's creation to the current deletion discussion: a 25-ish% chance of an article that "sticks" (no deletion) by 30 September,^[12] a 60-ish% chance by 31 December.^[13]

I interpret this to mean the market participants are looking at media coverage and our reliable sources requirements for themselves, rather than following every pro or con comment here. Good approach, guys.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per Gbear605‘s reasoning. Good idea.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Behavioural science, Social science, and Finance. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Full disclosure: I use Manifold and found out about this AfD via the markets about this article's existence, but I have not staked mana on either outcome. As a Manifold user, I love the site and hope it gets more popular to the point where it incontestably merits an article. As a Wikipedia editor... it's clearly not at that point yet. Reliable sources have only mentioned it in passing – we need more substantive coverage to pass NCORP.

I don't think draftifying is the right step either, that's more for articles that should eventually end up in mainspace but aren't at a good standard yet, whereas it's still an open question whether Manifold will ever be notable enough for an article. – Teratix ₵ 07:11, 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 Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy N. Leal[edit]

Sandy N. Leal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG as a county level judge and failed federal judicial nominee. I suppose this could be redirected to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Let'srun (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and California. Let'srun (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies per recent precedent. - Indefensible (talk) 06:21, 7 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 Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Arcia[edit]

Elizabeth Arcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least seven caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman

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 X Marks the Pedwalk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Pure Intellect[edit]

The Power of Pure Intellect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced since 2009 with no attempts at improvement. The album is by a non-notable band and doesn't have WP:SIGCOV from what I can find. It does not seem to meet any of the WP:NALBUMS criteria either. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to X Marks the Pedwalk, which notes it in discography, as WP:ATD —siroχo 02:54, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Lithopsian (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gyurkovicsarna[edit]

Gyurkovicsarna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Effectively unsourced. An IMDb link and the Swedish equivalent (see WP:NFSOURCES). Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Secondary and tertiary sources may exist, but nobody has seen fit to add them. Lithopsian (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sweden. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The current reference doesn't prove the film is notable. It is a database generated profile similar to IMDB, so makes it is a WP:SPS source and is non-rs. It has effectively been copied from one profile into another profile on here with nothing to satisfy WP:V. Searching Google Books on the subject names finds loads of passing mentions. There is no doubt that it exists but currently it is unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 20:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. Note the film is at least occasionally referred to as The Gyurkovics Family
  1. SIGCOV in this book [14]
  2. SIGCOV in this book [15]
  3. Brief coverage in this book [16]
  4. The Swedish language article references (Svenska Dagbladet, 20 september 1920, sid. 11)
  5. Mentions in these books [17][18]

—siroχo 20:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• comment don,t turn it in to a redirect to an article that is not the same subject (there was a redirect loop created in the article of John W Brunius). Keep the original or delete it so there is a red link and in future someone can make it into a noteworthy blue article.Geerestein3 (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note: there are claims that the Svensk Filmdatabas is similar to IMDb, but as far as i can see, is that the Svensk databas is from the Swedish filminstitut and is not open for the public to amend or adjust in comparison to IMDb, so there is already a big difference. In the Swedish database there is also a interesting caption 'Kommentarer'Geerestein3 (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the sources presented above by Siroxo attest notability. The film was apparently a commercial success. Note: 1) the page is not unsourced, it's insufficiently sourced (and that is not a reason for deletion, nor is the fact that no one bothered to add sources that indeed exist) 2) and of course the Svensk filmdatabas is much more reliable than IMDb, and this, specially on a Swedish film....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Page 62-64 of the ref 2 above "Masculinity in the Golden Age of Swedish" is detailed enough for a WP:SECONDARY ref. I couldn't see Ref 1 but assuming it the same as Ref 1 in quality, there should be enough. The others one are poor existance to non-existant. Posting passing mentions is useless to everybody. scope_creep^Talk 06:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources unearthed above are okay - there's enough for an article here. Also, as noted above, the Swedish Film Database entry has a section "Kommentarer" [19] that contains contemporary press coverage, which is a very welcome for old movies. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not that much coverage, but Masculinity in the Golden Age of Swedish Cinema offers enough. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: in light of comments above about the Swedish Film Database, I have posted the following at the reliable sources noticeboard:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Swedish Film Database - reliable source for Swedish and non-Swedish films and actors

I make the case there that this is a reliable database; if you agree or disagree, please chime in.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per sources above. As noted above, Svensk Filmdatabas is not a crowdsourced website but published by the Swedish Film Institute and gets its information from the production companies. /Julle (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (Inclusion, however, doesn't mean much more than the fact that it's a Swedish film with some kind of distribution. But other unearthed sources are good enough.) /Julle (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Database generated profiles are not reliable by long consensus and it is WP:PRIMARY so can't be used to establish notability. The argument has already been made that your essentially copying information from one location to another on the internet with no intellectual input, i..e what drives the encyclopeadia. That cannot be as seen as any kind of intellectually reliable way of building an encyclopeadia. scope_creep^Talk 05:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think folk realise how unreliable these databases are. There seems to be this tacit assumption that perhaps due to the organisation naming, its an Institute, therefore its must be reiable. They get there info from the production companies. Notthing could be further from the truth. There is no correlation between how prestigious an organisation is and how good there data is and often its converse because they don't want expose how bad things are and that is seen time and time from British utility company, to German rail companies to America healthcare provides to French nuclear regulatory bodies. Its all the same gig. So please, less and more fact checking. WP:SECONDARY sources are good standard. scope_creep^Talk 05:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a personal bias in this. You have to take into the equation that we are talking here about a movie from 1920. The production company doesn't exist so they didn't provide the information, and there is no suggestion that they filled the information with other databases in the internet. On the contrary there is information that only can be gather from pre internet sources. With your comparison to America healthcare en nuclear regulatory, you are comparing apples with i don't know children toys?. (not every database is the same) The fact is that an institut has published information on a movie and that there is no reason in this case to believe or suggest that they didn't do their due diligence. It scares me that you come with your one speculations and personal opions and make generalizations and projections to other area's but don't provide actual prove for the case at hand (the movie!!). That is something we could use less. The assumption that i, or other users. didn't check facts in this case is so very false and scary. I just wished your had checked the facts yourself before starting an editwar.

If wikipedia can not rely on information provided in this article by using the swedish filmdatabase (and yes your narrative would be beter suited for the IMDb database) then there is no point in making articles. Every kind of source, past and future, has reliability issues but we cannot use a theory on databases in general and therefore exclude every kind of information that comes from a source that calls itself a database. Every database should be judged on its own merits. And i believe in combination of Wikipedia goals the use of the database of the filminstitut is fair use for information provided on a topic about a movie of 1920 from Sweden. (until prove is given otherwise about the specific database) Geerestein3 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making an argument about "these databases", nor am I looking at the name. I'm talking about a specific database, Svensk Filmdatabas, which has long been discussed on Swedish Wikipedia. I'm well familiar with the weaknesses and limitations of this particular source. That note was, however, irrelevant for my decision to argue keep; I think the sources noted in the conversation are good enough without Svensk Filmdatabas. /Julle (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Julle, since the Swedish Film Database covers 10s of 1000s of non-Swedish films, I’m interested in using it as a reliable source in other film articles.

I’m interested in the discussions you mentioned on the Swedish Wikipedia about its strengths and weaknesses. If you are so inclined, I’d be interested in learning more, perhaps either on the AfD talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard link I posted above.

Thanks, —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about how reliable it is for foreign films, I'm afraid. /Julle (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, that’s a bold assertion about the databases. I spent several hours looking at our articles on film databases and I don’t think that’s necessarily true of several such as this one and the British Film Institute’s index.

It’s not hard to capture the information off the film credits of the film itself.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the nominator: @Lithopsian: I'd say this looks like a Snowball keep, would you consider withdrawing the nomination? (The debate about databases seems like a different issue and can be pursued elsewhere, I suppose). Thank you. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lithopsian (talk) 16:30, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bialosky Bear[edit]

Bialosky Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A product line that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NPRODUCT. Searches for sources are only turning up "for sale" type results or price guides rather than any actual coverage of the toys. And even the few paper sources from the era they are from that have been digitized are only ads for them that appeared in magazines/papers rather than coverage about them. I had initially considered simply WP:BOLDly redirecting or merging this to the Gund article, but the product line is not mentioned there, there is no suitable content in this article for merging, and my failure to find any significant coverage makes me think that the product line is ultimately not notable enough to be mentioned there. I am bringing it to AFD rather than simply PRODing this one, in case anyone else has any better luck in locating any print sources from the 70's or 80's. Rorshacma (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Products. Rorshacma (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we can probably keep by WP:GNG, as we should be able to write a start class or better article based on independent sources. Otherwise merge to Gund as an WP:ATD. Some SIGCOV here [20] A small amount of SIGCOV here [21], A short mention here [22].

Here's some mixed independent/non-independent coverage that will still be useful for the article [23][24] —siroχo 22:03, 17 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!} 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 20:10, 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 redirect‎ to Cartoon (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On & On (Cartoon song)[edit]

On & On (Cartoon song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non-notable song — Karnataka ^talk 19:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Estonia and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Redirect to Cartoon (band) which probably just passes the notability requirements. Pichpich (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above and because the article in its current form neither cites any sources nor provides any significant information about the song or its importance. A reader coming here looking for information about this song would be disappointed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:45, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze Lounge[edit]

Freeze Lounge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, India, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.— TheWikiholic (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per failing WP:GNG and WP:NORG. TH1980 (talk) 02:57, 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 redirect‎ to The Power of Five#Matthew Freeman (introduced in Raven's Gate). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Freeman (Power of Five)[edit]

Matt Freeman (Power of Five) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced and tagged for notability since 2010. Only in-universe information, except the lede. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Redirect to The Power of Five. Article is 100% unsourced fancruft. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Power of Five#Matthew Freeman (introduced in Raven's Gate), that section already contains more than enough info on this character, there's no need to merge in any more as none of this is sourced. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:14, 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 Gaeloideachas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forbairt Naíonraí Teoranta[edit]

Forbairt Naíonraí Teoranta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Ireland. UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gaeloideachas. As an ATD, I wonder if it would be best to summarise some of the relevant/cited/supported content to Gaeloideachas (the organisation into which the subject was seemingly "subsumed" in 2014). And redirect the title there. Guliolopez (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Languages-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gaeloideachas, with merge of any material not already there. Cnilep (talk) 07:55, 4 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 Action Force (comic strip). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Major[edit]

The Black Major (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Effectively the same reasoning as Baron Ironblood, beyond me not even realising this page existed until just now. To wit: - research conducted during creation of Action Force (comic strip) and update of Battle Picture Weekly found no sources to support a standalone page for the character. The one sources on the article is weak, it's very OR-y and really the character is a cypher. BEFORE brings up only passing references.

Not against redirecting to either Action Force or Action Force (comic strip). BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like redirect to Action Force (comic strip) gives the reader the most information on the character. —siroχo 04:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I lazily copied much of the nomination from that of Baron Ironblood, so would just like to note that describing the character as a cypher in this case is inaccurate as over the course of the comic the Black Major actually has a bit of interesting development, both with a dedicated origin arc and his continuation of the Red Shadows after the emergence of Cobra. However, this does not affect the actual nomination as none of this is covered by secondary sources. Just wanted to clarify. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Action Force per nom. There doesn't seem to be much for him. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Action Force (comic strip). This character has no SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:05, 6 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. The consensus here is to Keep this article on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lion lights[edit]

Lion lights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:PROMO WP:ADVERT piece, g11 declined because "looks notable" which has nothing to do with g11. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Products, and Kenya. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has significant coverage from CNN and WIPO already cited in article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CNN Business piece reads like a promo piece a marketing agency would put out same with the WIPO Piece, although the WIPO piece seems to be more of an informal piece with interview quote throughtout. So while CNN is normally reliable it feels like in this case, it is one of the less reliable end of CNNs articles. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: our WP:G11 policy states:

”This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.”

I don’t think this article meets the criteria for a CSD G11 tag; that’s why I removed the tag. We’ll see what others say.

The article has multiple refs, in particular CNN and the World Intellectual Property Organization’s WIPO magazine.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The CNN Business piece reads like a promo piece a marketing agency would put out same with the WIPO Piece, although the WIPO piece seems to be more of an informal piece with interview quote throughtout. So while CNN is normally reliable it feels like in this case, it is one of the less reliable end of CNNs articles. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  These lights won first place in the young inventor category of the European Inventor Awards, sponsored by the European Patent Office. That’s a big deal. Slam dunk notability based on that.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has significant enough coverage but article very much needs fixing to sound less promotional in tone and images are both copyright violations. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable, and any promotionalism has been removed. This discussion should closed per WP:SNOW. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  SNOW in the desert. Nice. I'm not getting it to snow, see below. Copyright concerns over the photo, is a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Copyright concerns over a photo means you propose the image for deletion. It's irrelevant to the notability of the topic, or to the original reason this was proposed for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They do if the article is to be deleted, they go hand in hand. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Boy this needs a rewrite. It's been covered in NPR [25] although it looks like a different thing. Georgia PBS [26]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kukos on copying the photo from the World Intellectual Property Organization, that's getting a tag as a copyvio. It's sourced there to someone else, who doesn't match the name used here, so red flags all over the place. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Two copyvios, both from WIPO. Dude, they basically enforce copyright around the world and coordinate treaties, don't steal from them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So, delete the photographs. Your points are irrelevant to the notability or promotional questions. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, they are red flags though, they pop up when people try to promote stuff on here. More times than I'd care for. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the inventor (who doesn't have an article). I don't think the light system is notable, there are a few discussions around the teen that invented them. The Copyvio photos are a red flag though, this is PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Louloudi92 uploaded commons:File:Richard Turere-profile-picture.jpg and commons:File:Lion Lights system.jpg to Commons. His user page says he is the assistant editor of WIPO magazine.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Commons admins will look into it. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Oaktree b's deletion requests at Commons. No response positive or negative so far:

• commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Turere-profile-picture.jpg
• commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lion Lights system.jpg

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability; the red flags certainly don't help either. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely notable. I say, delete people who nominate referenced things like this.Danstarr69 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! That’s a pretty rough comment.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. Even if it wasn't referenced, the references are easy to find.

If they weren't then fair enough.

It's like with someone I added to a 16 year old short film the other day on IMDB. As it was her first, and only film credit as far as I can see, I searched for external links to add to her profile. However I only found two, most likely because she's got married. One self-published. And one partial-interview in a local newspaper. She got to the final of a county Miss World type competition, and got to the final of two national Miss World type competitions, all three in the same year, plus is or was a model and a dancer.

If she had an Wikipedia article, and someone nominated it for deletion then fair enough, as there's nothing to prove she's notable. Did she win those 3 competitions she got to the final of? Who knows, because there's no follow up stories after January 2012 when that news story was published.

Editors are supposed to try and improve articles before nominating them for deletion.

Yet there's 100s or 1000s of people who seem to spend all day, every day, going around deleting or nominating articles for deletion, with no attempt to improve them first. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, we aren't here to rewrite the article after a deletion discussion, we're here to "process the paperwork". Wikipedia has a whole volunteer staff that need to do the work to keep it functioning. There are hundreds of AfD's that come up weekly, in English alone. If we stopped after each one and did the work on the article, the rest would get backed up and we'd never recover. I look at the discussion in AfD, say my piece, move on to the next one. That's my "job" here, that is entirely voluntary I might add. No one pays me to do this, I do it as I enjoy it. Oaktree b (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without a doubt. Agletarang (talk) 18:57, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Emilio Macias Memorial National High School[edit]

Don Emilio Macias Memorial National High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced since 2011 with no attempts at improvement. Unless Filipino-language sources can be found, article does not seem to meet WP:NSCHOOL. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no hits on Google Books, Google News and Google News Archives --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with nom in whole. Does not pass WP:NSCHOOL or any other notability guideline. User:Let'srun 20:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing came up in my searches either, seems to not meet WP:NSCHOOL per above. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, this page was seemingly created by an SPA with one total contribution, which was creating this page in 2011 via one edit.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:02, 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!} 20:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Cooke[edit]

Keith Cooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Along with Chris Casamassa, no longer meets notability requirements like many lesser actors from the Mortal Kombat franchise back in the 1990s. Minimal acting credits thereafter and article sourced only with a single interview since 2014. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Martial arts. Natg 19 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minimal acting credits. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails in WP:GNG nd not have any reliable source Worldiswide (talk) 04:28, 4 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!} 20:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myriad Sun[edit]

Myriad Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A non-notable side project of a non-notable local/regional musician (whose main band, however, is notable). There are some brief concert reviews and there has been one single released under the project, with no reviews, all of which is insufficient for WP:NBAND. (WP:GNG is a higher bar and it also isn't met.) —Alalch E. 18:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. —Alalch E. 18:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Falls short of WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would need coverage in independent sources to meet WP:BAND, nor has the band charted or received a major award. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 5 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!} 20:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Casamassa[edit]

Chris Casamassa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable martial artist. He did get some minor notability for his role in Mortal Kombat but that is his only major acting role. Natg 19 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Martial arts, and Pennsylvania. Natg 19 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Stunt Vampire in Blade and uncredited tournament guest in the Karate Kid? These are not notable roles. Rest are about the same level. No sourcing for this stuntvamp. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Forgot this article was still around. Like many other '90s Mortal Kombat-associated actors, no longer meets notability requirements. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Lethweimaster (talk) 08:07, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden Death Seven-ball[edit]

Sudden Death Seven-ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced since May of 2007 with no attempts to substantially improve the article. WP:BEFORE turned up some passing mentions and a forum thread, with most mentions being in the context of a television schedule, not WP:SIGCOV. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sports. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some mentions on a SportsBall website, that's all. Lack of any substantial sourcing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, I think the issue here is going to be the timing. It's a 2000-2006 events. Despite what the article says, it did run for six years, which is a reasonable run, and clearly for it to be organised/broadcast by ESPN, it's a big enough event. here's AZBilliards covering the event for instance. However, with it being early 2000s, a lot of the sources will be offline or dead by now from my experience of pool sources. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for finding that! It looks like they covered it one other time but that article reads a bit primary to me given the ad at the top and bottom. I will do some additional digging later this evening and see if anything else comes up. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, the other one is just a reformatted press release, but this one was written by AZBilliards themselves, so would be a suitable measuring stick. It's only one source though, but I would expect contemporary sources from this time period to cover this, which would likely be mostly offline. Maybe newspaper.com is a good place to check. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pool magazines like Billiards Digest and Inside Pool probably also covered it, but I don't have back-issue collections of them any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My additional research tonight did not turn up much else. I found a decent number of passing mentions in the form of awards lists/sports database entries and two new articles. Unfortunately,Cuesight seems to be an online store and PoolRoom seems to mostly be unedited press releases. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Found several trivial mentions of the subject in news articles/books or being part of some programming table. The only significant coverage that I came across is in this forum, which does not seem very reliable. For now it seems to lack enough appropriate coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This and some previouso deletions or deletion discussions of borderline-notable media related to cue sports makes me think we need a List of cue sports media sort of article, to listify such subjects, as they clearly pass WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE even if WP:Notability is a bar they're finding it hard to hurdle due to their niche-audience nature not generating coverage that is easy to find. If this one is deleted, please WP:REFUND it to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Sudden Death Seven-ball. There are some other previously deleted pool/billiards/snooker TV show and video game articles that I should probably have dug up out of page histories, as the old stubs on them would make reasonable list entries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:18, 6 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dermot FitzGerald[edit]

Dermot FitzGerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article has been tagged as unsourced sine 2008(!). NewspaperArchive.com and Newspapers.com turned up zero results, while ProQuest turned up an unrelated real estate agent, soccer player, and photographer. Seems to be an obituary, likely written by a family member or friend. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. Unsourced, and the name in Ireland is about as common as Smith is elsewhere. Anyone and everyone pops up in a search. No sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. A search for sources to support the main "claims to fame" (Involved in diving? Partner at PWC? Liquidator of a company that was a defendant in a court case? Associated with an assisted living facility?) do not return anything substantive. The subject is barely mentioned in relation to the court case for example. Far far below a SIGCOV threshold. And I can find nothing at all in relation to diving or elder charities. About the only thing that might contribute to notability is the claimed entry in Who's Who in Ireland: The Influential 1000. However, while I don't have a copy or immediate access to one, this work is billed as a "directory". And, at barely 230 pages and seemingly containing 1000 entries (averaging perhaps 5 entries per page), it seems unlikely that it contains more than a few lines on the subject. The WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTADVOCACY and apparent WP:COI overtones (associated with the article's creation) do little to help. Am frankly kinda surprised this article has not been deleted before now... Guliolopez (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Fails WP:GNG.Spleodrach (talk) 08:30, 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 speedy keep‎. Satisfies WP:NPOL as member of national parliament; nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zaal Udumashvili[edit]

Zaal Udumashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prod contested on basis of "Sources seem to exist" but no sources added. Appears to be a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The original article was a series of unsourced quotes feeling more promotional in nature than anything. Unsourced quotes have been removed. IceBergYYC (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IceBergYYC (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article does not represent this, but the subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Parliament of Georgia. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've rewritten the article, added a couple of sources and removed the uncited bits. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing as nominator to Speedy Keep meets NPOL as stated by Curbon7. source [27] IceBergYYC (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudos to the nominator for withdrawing the nomination when new information shows up. This is a collective search for the right answer and I admire people like IceBergYYC that don't see AfD as a zero-sum test of wills.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:32, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Rey Malto[edit]

John Rey Malto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see any major reasons for this article to stay on Wikipedia. John Rey Malto is a person working in his field, he got some awards, but I don't see major notability. Nadzik (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Advertising, and Philippines. Nadzik (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Notability doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, and the promotional tone of the article certainly does not help either. GuardianH (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I even tried to add some few references until I see that there have been a lot of IP addresses adding junk sources and social media links. Apart from the fact that notability does not meet WP:GNG, the edits revertion war on the edit history make the article looks suspicious of being a promotional article.Ojewuyib (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. I'm not sure if those awards are notable in their industry --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails wp:GNG. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per those above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:39, 7 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 Action Force (comic strip). Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Ironblood[edit]

Baron Ironblood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Research conducted during creation of Action Force (comic strip) and update of Battle Picture Weekly found no sources to support a standalone page for the character. The one sources on the article is weak, it's very OR-y and really the character is a cypher. BEFORE brings up only passing references.

Not against redirecting to either Action Force, Action Force (comic strip) or perhaps Cobra Commander, depending on consensus. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like redirect to Action Force (comic strip) gives the reader the most information on the character. —siroχo 04:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Action Force (comic strip). This character does not have standalone notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 6 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 15:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of automotive artists[edit]

List of automotive artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Badly formatted (alphabetized on first name instead of surname) and entirely unsourced list of mostly non-notable people. Of the 18 people here, just four have articles to link to, and virtually all of the others are singletons where the link in this list is the only redlink that exists anywhere in Wikipedia mainspace to their name, meaning that nobody else has ever previously assessed them as potentially notable enough for an article at all. And the only one of those redlinks that does have other redlinks in other articles, the redlinks are expecting a different person, because they're sports team rosters from 20+ years after this article says the artist died.
And while automobiles are obviously a topic that an artist can depict in art, the article cites absolutely no evidence that "automotive art" is an established genre of art that people can specialize in to the exclusion of other genres. Putting a cat in an artwork does not automatically render the creator into a "cat artist" per se, and on and so forth: in order to justify a list of automotive artists, we would also have to be able to write a head article that establishes and sources that "automotive art" is even a standard and recognized and defined and analyzed thing in the first place.
If somebody who works on artist biographies wants to keep a worklist of potential future article topics, they can do that in sandbox or project space, but this would need to meet much higher and stricter standards of notability and sourceability to become mainspace-worthy. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Lists of people. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NLIST and even if it didn't, the small number of entries notable enough for a WP page makes the need for a list questionable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I had seen this on NPP, and tagged it for notability and unsourced. The reason why I did not nominate it for deletion is that there actually is a subculture of American artists that might fit with the list, although none of them are currently included on the list. I am thinking of the Custom Car Culture peeps and ace pinstripers like Von Dutch (a.k.a. Kenneth Howard), Ed "Big Daddy" Roth, Robert Williams and other Southern California artists. I am also thinking about what writers like Tom Wolfe author of The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby, art critic Ralph Rugoff among others have written, and the Kustom Kulture show that was presented at the Laguna Art Museum years ago. I am also thinking of photographers who documented low-rider culture, people like Meridel Rubenstein, Danny Lyon as well as earlier photographers who documented hot rod culture, as evidenced in the book: The Birth of Hot Rodding: The Story of the Dry Lakes Era. Also there is Jean Tinguely's Le Safari de la Mort Moscovite, Chris Burden's Big Job and Billy Al Bengston's Dento series. More recent examples of contemporary artists who used actual cars or addressed car culture, include Richard Prince, Rose Bean Simpson, Andrea Polli, Maurizio Cattelan, Erwin Wurm, Gabriel Orozco, Damián Ortega, and many others. There is also the artist Kane Kwei from Ghana known for his carved wood automobile coffins. So I think there is potential here for a notable list but at this time this should either be blown up via WP:TNT and deleted or saved and written in an encyclopedic and historical manner that includes independent reliable sources that specifically address these artist's car-related works. I do believe enough sources exist to improve it, but I'm not sure I have the time to make those improvements before this AfD ends. Netherzone (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment 2 - in the event that this gets Draftified, here are some more suggestions for notable automotive artists: Pete Millar, John Chamberlain, also there is CARtoons Magazine, Tom Medley, Shawn Kerri (a.k.a. Shawn Maureen Fitzgerald). There is also Chris Burden's B-Car, and the notorious volkswagon piece.[28] Also Edward Kienholz' Back Seat Dodge '38 (1964). Most of these are Americans but would imagine there are also global additions that could be made.

  I'm surprised (!) by my own interest in this niche genre...guess it must trigger something from my childhood ;-)

  If the original article creator is not interested in making improvements, I'm willing to host it in my userspace as a draft for development to see if it can be brought up to meet notable-list criteria, or to start an article on Automotive art (or whatever it might be called) and I can work on it when I find time to do so (now is the busiest time of year at my job.) So I guess my !vote is delete-or-draftify. Netherzone (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - As stated in my comment above I think there is potential here, however the list as written does not meet our criteria for notable lists, nor do the artists. The links in the See Also section do not show that any of these artists, with the exception of one non-notable one, Klaus Wagger, make work that depicts or uses automobiles. Therefore, it should be deleted per WP:TNT, and failing to meet WP:NLIST. Netherzone (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The source for the list of is now 1 commercial site (Artland). That site generates some curiously inaccurate artist biographies. Check out Don Breckon who was, evidently "influenced by the artistic atmosphere of the time. Abstract Expressionism prevailed in the 1950s as a primary method of painting, and explored ideas about the sublime and spirituality". Also I don't think Harry Anderson (artist) is an automotive illustrator. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His article does say he did some advertising illustration work for Ford, but you're right, that's clearly not his primary notability claim for the purposes of warranting listing or categorization as such. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 5 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 15:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi nagar -Thekkalur[edit]

Gandhi nagar -Thekkalur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly sourced and poorly formatted article about a "sub-village". Neighbourhoods within larger municipalities are not "inherently" notable enough under WP:GEOLAND to be guaranteed their own standalone articles as separate topics from the main entity they're part of -- if the place can't be reliably sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG in its own right, then it should just be discussed within the article on the larger place rather than as its own standalone article, but this is relying entirely on primary sources that aren't support for notability, with not even one piece of GNG-building reliable source coverage shown at all.
Thekkalur, further, only has a population of about 12,000 people, according to its article, which means it isn't large enough to have the depth of reliable source coverage that would needed to make it likely that its "sub-villages" could actually pass GNG on their own as separate topics from Thekkalur.
I'd just redirect this to Thekkalur, but even the page title is improperly formatted and thus not valuable for retention -- I have no prejudice against the creation of a redirect to Thekkalur from a properly formatted version of the title, but one should not be created from this version of the title. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nomination - SUN EYE 1 17:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The sourcing in the article fails to establish notability nor can I find anything to substantiate notability. Searching is difficult as there appears to be many geographical locations that go by the name Gandhi Nagar. No prejudice to recreation if reliable sources can be found to establish notability. I agree with the nominator that a redirect from this title is not helpful. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 4 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 Archdeacon of Lismore. ✗plicit 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Burkitt[edit]

Robert Burkitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only refs on the page are in databases. Nothing I can find that he was anything other than a middle ranking anglican cleric, which doesn't seem to meet WP:CLERGY JMWt (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland. JMWt (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Archdeacon of Lismore, although merge would be possible, but it is not as simple as that! This is one of a very large number of permastubs created by an editor who was eventually indefinately banned from article space edits owing to issues with these. However, this is not the most egregious of them. Burkitt was an actual archdeacon, listed in Crockford's. However, that is about as far as we can go. Secondary sourcing is lacking, and archdeacons are not presumed to be notable. Thus we have no presumed notability, and doesn't meet WP:BASIC. As such, this article should not exist. However, although the subject does not meet notability requirements for a page, and there is not enough that can be said about him to actually write a page, Crockfords is itself evidence of notability of a collection per WP:LISTN, and this page could therefore be merged with Archdeacon of Lismore. I had this discussion when the page creator was still active, and we did get consensus, through AfD, for something like that at Archdeacon of Raphoe, where you can see how the archdeacon article can be massively improved if it lists the holders of the office. The problem was that it required merging not one, but 20 archdeacon articles into that page, and consensus held that 4 of the archdeacons were independently notable for a page. This nomination, therefore, does not really sit alone. There are at least 6 pages that would need to be merged, and probably more. Each needs to be considered against WP:BASIC. I spent a lot of time on the Archdeacon of Raphoe article, and have never found sufficient time to prosecute the rest. Merging this one alone makes little sense, but a redirect would at least preserve the information scraped from Crockford's. Whether that is worth a redirect over delete, I will leave for others to decide. I suggest redirect mostly because they are WP:CHEAP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom, WP:NBIO, WP:GNG and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. As noted by Sirfurboy, this is yet another one of these poorly sourced, non-notable and WP:NOTEVERYTHING entries (created by an editor who was blocked for repeatedly creating/recreating exactly these types of articles) who seemed intent on creating sub-stubs on every member of the administration/clergy of the Church of Ireland. As with many others in the creator's "series", there is no indication that the subject meets the applicable criteria. My own WP:BEFORE search returns only the same (very poor and potentially unreliable) sources we find in the article. And maybe a few trivial passing mentions in other works. Far from SIGCOV. Guliolopez (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Archdeacon of Lismore without deleting so that in due course a list of archdeacons can be added to that page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Sirfurboy and Atlantic306 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:50, 4 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 14:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Kazlovich[edit]

Maksim Kazlovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm concerned that WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC are both failed here. I've searched in Russian, Belarusian and English and can find nothing better than Soccernet, which is clearly not significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per a lack of GNG-passing sources. Agree with nomination's analysis. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:59, 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 14:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Htoo[edit]

Kyaw Htoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Having searched in both Burmese and English, I was unable to find anything even close to significant coverage for WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Please note that WP:FPL is no longer relevant and Kyaw Htoo is required to have significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no GNG-passing sources to be found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails in WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC Worldiswide (talk) 04:29, 4 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 speedy delete‎ under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sami ur Rehman[edit]

Sami ur Rehman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the sources cited are independent WP:RS nor could I find any myself. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE. He has not been involved in a notable production yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to be not conforming to npov also it is not notable so Agree •Cyberwolf• 13:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (I think that applies here, forgive me AfD isn't my normal cup of tea, but I came here from a related RM). Returning this to draftspace could also be a potential option, but this article is very WP:POV-y so either option works. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a clear cut case of G11. I have tagged the page. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:29, 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 14:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alrick Toney[edit]

Alrick Toney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I revived the SME Sport source but it's just a trivial mention, this means that all 7 references used in the article are trivial coverage only. There is no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and the one tournament that he was runner-up in is below the requirements for WP:NBAD. This article is lengthy but it's almost entirely just a listing of his youth results, which don't confer notability. My WP:BEFORE search found nothing better than Barbados Advocate, Guyana Chronicle and QN Sports, all of which are passing mentions of Toney. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and South America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 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 04:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NLS Debate[edit]

NLS Debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article doesn’t match the required prominence — it is smaller than two other major Indian tournaments, the NALSAR IV and the IIT Bombay Debate, in size, and other similar or larger and similar or more internationally representative pools, such as the Oxford IV, the Yale IV, or the Sofia Open, don’t have Wikipedia articles either. Additionally, the article has pretty significant issues, including random sentences from unrelated articles. Tejas Subramaniam (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]