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. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candela Corp[edit]

Candela Corp (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 article; no sources found at all. Makes many claims, so too long to be bunkum, but we should discuss. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: the company was planning to go public, but in September 2022 withdrew its IPO. As a public company, we would have likely seen a stream of news about it. But by staying private, it remains in the shadows. Owen× ☎ 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete If the company had gone public, there would have been more sources to meet notability. I think it withdrew the IPO. Chaosbrigader64 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sreshth Movies[edit]

Sreshth Movies (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)

Film production company that has mentions of films it has produced or distributed, but nothing in-depth that satisfied WP:CORPDEPTH. Would recommend a merge as an WP:ATD but know it would likely be contested based on recent editing I have seen in Indian film-related pages so taking to AfD for editors to decide. CNMall41 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian Dorosario[edit]

Christian Dorosario (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 a notable athlete; never won a medal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Senegal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, Thank you for bringing this up because it gives us an important opportunity to improve the article. I added a few cites to the article. Athlete was a two-time Olympian who set school records for the Malone Pioneers in the 1970s before becoming a United Nations official. Both of those are leads for someone looking for more cites. --Habst (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Nothing beyond passing mentions in Newspapers.com (searching for just "Rosario" as well as "doRosario" and "do Rosario"). Being in the Olympics does not provide a presumption of coverage anymore.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for voting. From my experience, Newspapers.com generally focuses on American coverage and I don't think it would list any Senegalese coverage of Dorosario. I just updated the article to use clippings instead of WMF Library links for some existing sources. I think we ought to at least attempt to find coverage in his native country before deciding to delete, do you know of any ways we could do that? --Habst (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no obligation to do extensive searches for offline sources when we don't have a presumption that they exist. If we had other articles on Senegalese Olympians of similar achievement and from the same time period for whom someone had found SIGCOV in specific offline sources, we might be able to presume finding the same coverage for this subject if we had access to those sources. But per two global consensuses, we explicitly cannot just assume that any region or time period had a sufficient degree of Olympics coverage in RS without evidence. NSPORT also requires a SIGCOV IRS source be cited in the article for it to remain in mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Database listing	1. Evans, Hilary; Gjerde, Arild; Heijmans, Jeroen; Mallon, Bill; et al. "Christian Dorosario Olympic Results". Olympics at Sports-Reference.com. Sports Reference LLC. Archived from the original on 18 April 2020. Retrieved 13 July 2017.
Single sentence mention	2. ^ "The Evening Independent". 19 July 1976. Retrieved 1 December 2023.
Name mentioned	3. ^ "The Evening Independent". 12 May 1975. Retrieved 1 December 2023.
Linkedin	4. ^ Christian Dorosario on LinkedIn
Name listed	5. ^ "United Nations Reform in Africa: "Delivering as One"". issuu. 10 April 2017.
Name mentioned	6. ^ "The Miami Herald". wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org. Retrieved 1 December 2023.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP requires strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ to either delete or redirect. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Postage (album)[edit]

Postage (album) (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 haven't been able to find any coverage on this album minus the Amplifier article in the references (which are broken) and said website seemed to be a now-defunct music shop/distributor, so I'm not particularly sure how much I'd consider that a reliable source; the only other mention of this album I've been able to find right now was in a list of their discography. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 22:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and New Zealand. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 22:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Supergroove: The Amplifier article (archived here) has a good bit to say on this album. I don't know enough about the site to judge whether it's reliable or not, but without any bylines and the likelihood that those articles are just unedited press releases, it doesn't look great. Regardless, it's not enough on its own, and I couldn't find anything else supporting notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I don't know to what extent the following support keeping the article, but they are probably worth consideration for people making votes:

• The album won an award for best album cover in New Zealand's major music awards event.
• The "album debuted at number 10 on the New Zealand Album Chart, remaining in the Top 20 for four weeks, and the Top 50 for seven weeks going gold a week after release", as noted in the above-linked article (which is a press release, to be clear, though from the awards ceremony rather than directly from the band or label).
• The New Zealand Herald gave it a 4-star review (with a byline!). --superioridad ^(discusión) 07:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, after thinking some more about the info in my comment above. I say that an album with independent sources (a) that review it, (b) that verify that it is award-winning, and (c) that verify that it is gold-certified is a notable album, and notable enough to merit an article. I have also found three additional reviews that are not on the publicly searchable web, but that anyone with a relevant database subscription can confirm:

• The Waikato Times, 30 October 2003. Within a music review column titled "The Wrap". Reviewer: Tracey Chapman. Verdict: 2/5.
• The Southland Times, 25 October 2003. "Supergroove show huge talent". Reviewer: Phil McCarthy. No numerical verdict afaict; positive in tone.
• New Zealand Truth, 31 October 2003. "Still just can't get enough of band called Supergroove". Reviewer: South Kristian. No numerical verdict afaict; positive in tone.

--superioridad ^(discusión) 04:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak keep, I'm inclined to being swayed by the reviews mentioned above. The charting positions should be possible to confirm independently of a press release. Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The official website of the NZ music charts, a website of Recorded Music NZ has archives going back that far, and it gives these chart positions:

• 2-8 November 2003, No. 10
• 9-15 November 2003, No. 10
• 16-22 November 2003, No. 15
• 23-29 November 2003, No. 19
• 30 November-6 December 2003, No. 26
• 7-13 December 2003, No. 44
• 14-20 December 2003, No. 36

It is also marked as a Gold-certified album on those same pages. --superioridad ^(discusión) 03:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to France at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Archery. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Albert Dauchez[edit]

Albert Dauchez (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:SPORTSBASIC. Only source in the article is an Olympedia source which is not in-depth coverage, and does not satisfy notability guidelines. A BEFORE search doesn't show anything promising either. Tails Wx 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Olympics, and France. Tails Wx 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment it apears the person was of some notable in the early 20th century, the article exists in several languages but I do agree that more sources must be added and more that the article at its current state is poor. At its current state I think you're right. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Nothing in Newspapers.com or ProQuest. We can't assume everyone got sustained SIGCOV.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to France at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Archery per WP:ATD if no further sources can be located - that would require a proper search of French newspapers of the period, which it appears has not so far taken place. Ingratis (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to France at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Archery as an ATD. Fails GNG and NBIO. BEFORE showed database results, nothing that would indicate there is WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  15:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Boulton[edit]

David Boulton (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:GNG, WP:NBIO. I don't see any independent sources with any significant depth. Daask (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @ZettaComposer: Courtesy ping as contributor to this article. Daask (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There is nothing stated in this brief summary of me and my work that is untrue or misleading. I am not an actor. I am not a filmmaker, though I did produce and direct the Children of the Code documentary. I have no idea why anyone would want to delete this page? 2600:1700:9831:60B0:19D6:FBD8:3050:AF4B (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it's sourced to your biography, so if anything is incorrect, I'd start there first. It's being looked at for deletion as we only have primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There is nothing stated in this brief summary of me and my work that is untrue or misleading. I am not an actor. I am not a filmmaker, though I did produce and direct the Children of the Code documentary. I have no idea why anyone would want to delete this page? 2600:1700:9831:60B0:19D6:FBD8:3050:AF4B (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for the ping @Daask:. IIRC I just passed through and gave it a quick cleanup while fixing underlinked tags. If there are no other independent sources to enhance the article and make it less self-promotional then I Support deletion. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I am new to Wiki page procedures, may I request an extension of time to compile more independent resources. I am familiar with David Boulton and his work and feel confident we can update the page. David Boulton is currently ill with Covid and my correspondence with him is delayed. Is there a "specific" objection to any statements on the page or just a general lack of "independent sources with any significant depth" Kevin Kevin Manley (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Vote to KEEP. Not sure any objections are clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Manley (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Several hits on the name that I find, none that seem to be about this individual however. We only have primary sourcing or non-RS now in the article, so not much for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: before search does not produce positive result to demonstrate notability. Search result brought up several different things not related to the information about the subject here. Metroick (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tapping. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pick tapping[edit]

Pick tapping (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 edited this article over a decade ago, and it has never been expanded. Highly doubtful that it would ever warrant enough material to go beyond stub class, as it is simply a minor offshoot of the regular tapping technique. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge with Tapping: as a section, while contrasting the difference with two-handed tapping. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After Operation London Cafe[edit]

After Operation London Cafe (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)

Moved back to articlespace from draftspace by article creator. Draftify until release. DareshMohan (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Draftify again and GREENLOCK for one month, or else we'll just be here again eight days from now. Owen× ☎ 23:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Bank of Scotland. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intelligent Finance[edit]

Intelligent Finance (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 on a division of the Bank of Scotland is sourced to two non-RS. A BEFORE is somewhat difficult given the organization's common name but, insofar as I can tell, it has only a smattering of WP:ROUTINE coverage, plus press releases. Chetsford (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge with Bank of Scotland: doesn't seem notable by itself, but verifiable information can be included as a short paragraph on the target. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of events commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the September 11 attacks[edit]

List of events commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the September 11 attacks (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)

Almost no items in this list, and they aren't particuarly significant. I also don't believe that this is a notable list (ie people often refer to the list as a whole). —Panamitsu (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Terrorism, and New York. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Notable subject but still a listcruft. Orientls (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Subject is WP:LISTCRUFT with a lack of coverage covering these events as a group. Let'srun (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- This would be LISTCRUFT if there was any sort of sourcing (or any sort of list). Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST for lack of sources that consider the concept as a group as opposed to individual events/items. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Margherita d'Este[edit]

Margherita d'Este (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:NOTGENEALOGY. Sourced entirely to one online genealogical self-published website. DrKay (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Italy. DrKay (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At least there are sources. Some pages have no sources so I don’t understand why you’d put it up for deletion. YorkDr (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some pages have no sources See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Having other problematic pages is not a valid reason to keep another one that has issues of its own. Each article is evaluated based on its own merit. Also, lack of sources in an article is not necessarily equal to lack of notability, if one can demonstrate that significant coverage of the subject in secondary reliable sources does exist. This is what you should be doing with regards to this page. Keivan.f^Talk 14:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete - Sorry! I have tried to find details about her life both offline and online; however, I couldn't find any information. Nevertheless, if kept, Italian editors interested in history may come across sources. Therefore, I leave it for them. 1.47.128.24 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. I don't think WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies to families like hers. People in her position were public figures. The sourcing may not be great, but is enough to know she existed. Deletion serves no useful purpose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Royaltycruft, fails GNG and NBIO. Notability is not inherited and nothing indicates this individual was notable in themselves or did anything of significance. The article is part genealogy (much of it unsourced) and part royaltycruft memorial.  // Timothy :: talk  15:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Mazi Melesa Pilip[edit]

The result was WP:SNOW keep. No support for deletion or redirection, except one !vote citing no evidence other than "per nomination." I had not seen Tbrechner's message, and had not noticed that WP:SNOW requires unanimity. I will be more careful in the future. (non-admin closure)‎ Luke10.27 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mazi Melesa Pilip (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)

As a local level officeholder, Pilip does not meet, or not meet, GNG or NPOL. However, the kinds of ways that one can meet GNG or NPOL as a local politician are not present here (e.g. longevity). As a candidate, it is too early to see if her candidacy meets NPOL based on its historic importance. Her military career does not meet GNG for military officers (e.g. flag officer or an IDF Medal of Honor-equivalent) Mpen320 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep With her background, Ms. Pilip is certainly a person of note in the political world, including that she has just been tapped to run for the Congressional seat vacated by former Congressman George Santos. This on the same day that Mpen320 has written this request for deletion. Cecropia (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply. Yes, I wrote this after that announcement and would note that being a congressional candidate does not meet NPOL or GNG in of itself.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Ethiopia, Israel, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: Some of the sources in the article, specifically the articles by Aish HaTorah ([1]) and The Forward ([2]), seems to indicate she meets WP:GNG. Additionally, I do not think WP:BLP1E applies here, as some of these sources which provide WP:SIGCOV are over two years old. Curbon7 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  All that said, I strongly disagree with any WP:CRYSTALBALL keep rationales regarding what coverage she could get in the future. We're discussing the sources that exist here-and-now. Curbon7 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The Aish article is written by a PR agency. Doesn't count towards notability from what I understand. The Forward is just routine coverage of a local election win. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  While the writer Kylie Ora Lobell does own a PR firm, the Aish article does not seem to be affiliated with that business; I note that writer is a contributor to a number of other Jewish publications ([3]) Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect: Pilip fails to meet WP:NPOL as a local non-major politician who has held office for not even two years. She has, however, received recent press coverage (Politico([4]), CNN([5]), Newsday([6]) as she has been nominated by the NY Republican Party to be their candidate in the NY-3 special election. The focus of these articles is not Melesa Pilip herself but is instead her relation to the NY-3 special election to replace former Congressman George Santos. Therefore, in this case, she does not have significant coverage; the election has significant coverage. The non-recent significant coverage cited by Curbon7 is valid, but I would argue that WP:BLP1E applies. As a result, she fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Melesa Pilip should be redirected to the 2024 New York's 3rd congressional district special election page, which is now a heavily-related article to Melesa Pilip due to her recent nomination as the Republican candidate.Tbrechner (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep She just received the party nomination for the open congressional seat in New York, which has received extensive national coverage. The race will be hotly contested and widely covered in the media as well. This should end this AfD discussion. It’s now obvious that this is a “Keep.” Go4thProsper (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply: So far, the race and Melesa Pilip's nomination for the Republican ballot line in such race have received national coverage, but Melesa Pilip herself has not received unrelated national coverage outside of the past coverage cited by Curbon7, which meets the criteria of BLP1E as coverage solely about Melesa Pilip is in the context of her local election position; Melesa Pilip is currently a low-profile individual and is likely to continue to be if she loses the special election; and her previous national coverage is not substantial. Therefore, she fails to meet both Wikipedia:SIGCOV and Wikipedia:GNG. If you think she meets the general notability guidelines, please specify how because, currently, she does not seem to meet them. Tbrechner (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Reply: I agree with Go4thProsper that this article should be kept. Mazi Melesa Pilip was elected to New York State's Nassau County Legislature representing Nassau County, Long Island's 10th district. This fact alone is notable and of interest to New Yorkers. Other county legislators for New York are in many articles on Wikipedia. If this article should be deleted then the other ones should too. I think that all articles identifying NYS County Legislators must be kept. You can't selectively keep some and not others. KhrisKerr (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to special election page per nomination. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep Seems like enough material for a biography. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Curbon7, I believe she meets WP:GNG. The Forward in 2021 and this, as well as more recent coverage: NYT here for example. --Deansfa (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  With due respect, if routine coverage from ethnic media of a local election (like The Forward's coverage) met the standard for notability, we'd have articles on many local politicians but we don't because that doesn't meet the standard of notability. What you refer to as "this" is a piece written by a public relations professional that refers to the Nassau County Legislature as the NY Legislature. The NYT coverage is coverage of the 2024 New York's 3rd congressional district special election which is where she should be covered until if and when she wins. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  it's always the same issue. we make some rules with very clear wording: "addresses the topic directly and in detail", "significant coverage in reliable sources", "sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability". All of those very clear expressions are met with The Forward, The New York Times and others (I could have provided 10 more "addresses the topic directly" articles in NYT-like sources). but there's always someone who wants to add a "yes but". I looked if "routine news" coverage and "ethnic media" (sic) was a disqualifier, "routine news" is mentionned in the case of events, not people. "ethnic media" seems to be totally fabricated. --Deansfa (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Dcpoliticaljunkie - your "coverage from ethnic media" disparagement of an RS is somewhat troubling. First, it is false to characterize her coverage as such - as you can see (if you do a wp:before type search), her coverage is broad nationally in the highest circulation publications in the US, and even extends to overseas. Second, you simply fabricate a rule of exclusion, that appears nowhere in WP rules. Third, while I am of course certain it is not what you meant, it does come across as statement that is perhaps just slightly repugnant. What's next? Delete all references from Black and Catholic and Armenian publications, or say that they do not count towards notability? Unsettling that your comment would be starting down this road.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:C4F:ED3C:CF8B:3CBB (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per Curbon7 and Deansfa.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Conditional keep on election outcome. For now: I believe that Pilip is unusually well-covered for a minor politician, enough so to meet the WP:POLITICIAN guideline. Notability would be solidified by being elected, because a person elected to US Congress is inherently notable for that reason. In the other case, from a future observer’s POV, a local politician with very brief national coverage who once ran for federal office and lost doesn’t really warrant an article (assuming there was nothing further of note). I agree with the “rising star” postulation per Hila Livne and Drsruli. It seems best in line with WP:CRYSTALBALL that we presume Pilip meets the notability threshold. We can’t just predict that Pilip will have been a “flash in the pan”. 2600:1700:FD0:E200:18FD:AC48:5F48:27A8 (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, her background is inspiring and her political career is on the rise Hila Livne (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC) * *Reply[reply]

Reply: Respectfully, being inspiring and running for Congress does not alone meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. I appreciate your contribution, but please edit your contribution to be more specific. Tbrechner (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep for all the reasons above PLUS she was just nominated to replace George Santos. Her star is rising. Drsruli (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply: I do not see how being nominated in a special election alone makes her article more in compliance with Wikipedia's standards for notability, and, respectfully, "[h]er star is rising" is not a valid justification for keeping this article. Tbrechner (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Pilip has all the rights to remain on the Wikipedia page considering she's running for a congressional position which is New York's 3rd district for the United States House of Representatives. As an official Republican candidate for this position, people should know who she is, as such, the individual should remain on Wikipedia and this page should remain up. I have reason to believe there is no reason the page should be removed as she is a notable individual and should be treated as such considering her candidacy for a public office within the United States. SkyGamerOfficial (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Per Curbon7 and Deansfa. Pilip clearly meets GNG. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Meets GNG for sure. Notable figure. GeorgeBailey (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable. — Omegatron (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. [the italics are in the source, the bold is my accent]. gidonb (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Snow Keep. Even the coverage from the past month alone would meet GNG. Really, a borderline absurd nomination. Which is why the above !votes reflect that this should be a snow keep. The nomination is a waste of the community's time, and the nominator should consider the cost to the community the next time they fail to do a wp:before search focused on gng. That's assuming good faith .. and that the nom didn't just happen upon the article in the first place after seeing the robust news coverage on the subject this week. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C4F:ED3C:CF8B:3CBB (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I’d say it’s too soon for snow SecretName101 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The last dozen !votes since refs have been added have all been unanimously some version of Keep. Snow closes are for situations like this, to save community time. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:4CBD:1DE:AA9E:9313 (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep as just passing WP:GNG, largely for the article in The Forward - as the current coverage of her previous campaigns and policies as an elected official show that WP:BLP1E does not apply. In general candidates for the US Congress should be redirected to the page about the election, but each subject should be evaluated to see if they would pass GNG prior to their candidacy (or the coverage is well beyond that of the average candidate, such as internationalized coverage). As it stands, the subject does not pass WP:NPOL as the only metric for a clear pass of the SNG is holding a national or statewide elected position. Receiving a party nomination is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article, nor is anyone entitled to a Wikipedia stand-alone page. (I have general thoughts here).--Enos733 (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the essay-in-progress you linked. After quite the rabbit hole of reviewing candidate AfD outcomes, I'm withdrawing my redirect vote. I think filling out the essay a bit more and getting it included as a guideline in WP:AmPol would be quite useful. The Theresa Greenfield and Eliot Cutler examples are particularly insightful. Seems there's some precedent for keeping candidate articles if they've gotten enough coverage (a position that I actually prefer). Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep As a candidate for a federal office, she is notable not withstanding her previous accomplishments. Its not like we are running out of disk space. --rogerd (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 23:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

N. Satyen[edit]

N. Satyen (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 wasn't able to establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Probably meets WP:CREATIVE for his multiple contributions as cinematographer to notable films (noted here, or here, for example) or in various books (see GB). These are passing mentions but they allow verification of his contributions. Keep. Worst case scenario, redirect to IIndian cinematographers-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Two sources in article are database listings, BEFORE showed nothign that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  16:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Qt (software)#Language bindings. as a viable ATD. A discussion on whether any material should be merged can be handled editorially and doesn't require a relist Star Mississippi 23:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QtRuby[edit]

QtRuby (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 is primarily about the software library https://github.com/KDE/qtruby which has been dead since 2013, and secondarily about any Ruby bindings for Qt, which are all now dead. Wikipedia seems to generally be lenient in enforcing notability policy for open-source software projects, but notability isn't established by the currently-cited sources. A determined editor could probably dig up some ancient reviews in a WP:BEFORE search, but I'm content that Wikipedia is not lacking as an encyclopedia by not having this article. Daask (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - nowhere near notable enough for an article. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge: trimmed (2-3 sentences max len), properly sourced material into Qt (software)#Language bindings. As it stands this is an unnneeded CFORK, a proper merge will improve the target.  // Timothy :: talk  16:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc.[edit]

Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc. (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)

Moved out of AfC by a (declared) paid editor. I have found no evidence of N:ORG or MEDRS level sourcing. Star Mississippi 21:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 21:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Gnews is four pages of press releases, Gsearch is page after page of search results from their website. One heck of an active marketing team they have, but nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete A bunch of press release, a search shows just press releases from google news and the article was created by an impatient Paid editor. Chaosbrigader64 (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Promotional, no indication of significance, founded in 2023 and just too soon. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Moldova women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bianca Druță[edit]

Bianca Druță (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 Moldova women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. That list should only be populated with people who are also notable, so if this person isn't notable, then having a redirect to that page doesn't make sense. Until such time that they are notable, anyway - which currently they are not. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 11:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ nomination withdrawn, as promised, because better sourcing has been found. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rocník 21[edit]

Rocník 21 (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 about a film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. This is of the "topic is a film that exists, the end" variety, and cites absolutely no reliable source coverage about the film to establish its notability, and it has existed in this state since 2011 without ever seeing a whit of improvement in over a decade -- and while there is an interlang to the Russian Wikipedia (though, strangely for a purportedly German film, none to the German Wikipedia), that article is longer but strictly single-sourced, so that source still wouldn't get this over WP:GNG all by itself.
As I can't read German or Czech, I'm more than willing to withdraw this if somebody with access to German or Czech language resources can actually find the sourcing needed to expand and salvage this, but just existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Czech Republic, Germany, and Slovakia. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Sourced the page with some of the numerous existing sources in various languages, including English, about this classic. (Very strong keep). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note to nominator: @Bearcat: would you mind withdrawing your nomination then? We would save some time and I could move the page to Ročník 21. Thank you very much.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 4-8-4. Consensus not to retain but split between three options. I've picked this one as Owen references the target is mentioned at the destination, but any editor can either re-target the redirect or merge the content elsewhere if desired. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toledo, Peoria and Western Class H-10[edit]

Toledo, Peoria and Western Class H-10 (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)

Two sources and lacks notability.

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) BigSneeze444 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge pertinent information into Toledo, Peoria and Western Railway would be the best choice. TH1980 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak delete: The sourced information comes from either a blog or a book that may have been self-published, making the content only questionably acceptable for merging. This is an unlikely and impractical candidate for redirecting, so no on that. There seems to be a general consensus that most train classes are notable in of themselves, but there is a lack of sourcing available on this class in particular that leads me to believe it does not clear GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to 4-8-4: where it is already mentioned. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vipul Dhanaker[edit]

Vipul Dhanaker (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 Musician. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, India, and Delhi. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Both references in the article, The Hindustan Times and Times Now News, are non-independent as they're mere interviews. Otherwise, no other sources found that are WP:NBASIC nor WP:MUSICBIO-worthy, both in English or Hindi languages. ~ Tails Wx 19:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete It fails to satisfy WP:GNG since the references solely consist of interviews, and no sources aligning with the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO have been found. Dcotos (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slappy and the Stinkers[edit]

Slappy and the Stinkers (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 film. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. I cannot find any independent significant coverage of this movie. (Article was deleted in 2008 by WP:PROD.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, and my thanks to the editor(s) who added the refs to the article. My before obviously fell short in this case. Schazjmd (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Hmm. Was reviewed in the New York Times, in Variety, in TV guide, by Roger Ebert, etc! Sources about production and release abound. So Strong Keep.. Will add(ed) those sources to the page but a withdrawal of this nomination would be appreciated and save other contributors' time, I should think. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per NFO #1, two nationally known critics, Ebert and Van Gelder. Agree with @Mushy Yank this AfD is a time-waster. Oblivy (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. As it turned out, the nomination was both sloppy and a stinker. (I gamble that you have some self-deprecating humor on this.) Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It would be great if sourced brought up in this discussion found their way into the article. Unfortunately, this often doesn't happen at AFDs. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colonel By Classic[edit]

Colonel By Classic (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 does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY. Sources seem to either be non-independent (from the schools) or be WP:CRYSTAL ("still has a long ways to go", source #4 says). A BEFORE check didn't come up with much else, just some routine game previews and recaps confirming there are some games by this title, but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Ice hockey, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. There does appear to be some significant coverage in my mind, outside of just the schools and student papers.[7][8][9][10] -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: This is an event game, not just a rivalry. Cmm3 (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: as per WP:SIGCOV provided by EarlAndrew. Flibirigit (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ulike[edit]

Ulike (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 company of minor importance, sourced mostly if not exclusively to press releases and other primary/marketing outlets. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: I see nothing but company-issued press releases; no independent coverage. Owen× ☎ 18:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: If you check on google search for Ulike, you will see tons of articles about Ulike from independent sources and these can be added to the wikipedia page... Secondly, why would all these hair removal companies be okay on Wikipedia (Candela Corp, Nad's, check Category:Hair removal) but not Ulike? Its level of importance is not less than those. Moreover, Candela Corp doesn't have "ONE" reference... what is going on with Wikipedia's lack of article consistency across the platform. If you are going to enforce these strict rules after I create an article, show that same passion for policy on other articles that seem to break rules. This is not right! More independent sources have been added to the article. Although I disagree, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • BeFriendlyGoodSir, I'm going to give you a minute to reconsider your rather ridiculous opening claim. The things you just added--well, more experienced editors will be able to judge them. You yourself should be able to judge whether this promotional piece is actual journalism (written by "...") or simply product placement. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Drmies how about this one? BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Can you find an editorial statement on that website, or an "About Us" page that explains who or what they are? I can't, and it reads like advertising. Also, you removed that personal attack: good. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you for those, I've also nominated Candela for deletion, they look to have zero sourcing in the article. Nothing found otherwise either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: None of the sources used in the article are green per source bot, rest are red or orange, so primary or semi-notable (press releases are primary sourcing). This is the best I can find [11], feels like PR. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I will remove every PR promotional source and start from scratch until I know there are no independent sources. Please give me some time to collect citations at which point I will accept deletion if it is truly appropriate. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Perhaps notable articles on the subject can only be found on China's search engine, Baidu. I do not have Baidu and I do not speak Chinese. If I can't find anything in a couple, proceed as you wish. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • tons of "independent" youtube videos on ulike, can any be used? BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is an encyclopedia: you should not be asking this. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      Go ahead, delete this, I do not care. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Non-notable company that does not show it importance of getting a page. Chaosbrigader64 (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gurdip Ram Bungar[edit]

Gurdip Ram Bungar (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 page has been declined on AfC, and deleted on AfD a few months ago and now recreated again. The politician is not notable and doesn't have a "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". BoraVoro (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Punjab, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete – issues brought up in original AfD are not addressed in this new article. Dan • ✉ 21:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for providing a chance to let others know why the page for Mayor Gurdip Bangar is important on Wikipedia.

His origin is from the Dalit caste, and he is the first from this community. This is his second term as mayor.

This page should be on Wikipedia because he is a symbol of confidence for Dalits. Dev Mahey (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, Source eval:

Comments	Source
Council page, not WP:IS	1. Mistry, Rahul. "The Mayor". Gravesham Borough Council. Retrieved 28 September 2023.
Routine mill news about election by council as deputy mayor.	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Singh, I P (16 May 2014). "Gravesham council, UK, gets first ravidassia deputy Mayor". The Times of India.
Does not mention subject, fails SIGCOV	3. ^ "'I can only say thanks to the NHS, you are our real heroes'". Kent Online. 12 May 2020.
Council page, not WP:IS	4. ^ "Councillor details - Cllr Gurdip Ram Bungar". democracy.gravesham.gov.uk. 28 September 2023.
Interview	5. ^ "New mayor 'humbled' by role". Kent Online. 17 May 2019.
Fails WP:IS, subject is associated with source	6. ^ "House of Mercy Gravesend - Home - News & Events". www.houseofmercygravesend.com.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  17:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Mongolian films of 1936[edit]

List of Mongolian films of 1936 (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)

Single-item list consisting of a poorly-sourced, non-notable film. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Mongolia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Listed at Lists of Mongolian films, baffled why this would need to be a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 20:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The standard process here is that a country gets one base List of Mongolian films first, and separate lists by year get spun off only when the omnibus list has come to contain hundreds or thousands of films that need to be chunked out for size management purposes. The base list already exists, however, and it isn't nearly long enough yet to need splitouts. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Redirect to List of Mongolian films, per WP:ATD-R. BD2412 T 13:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. If you wish to pursue a Merge with another article, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of Greatest Hits Radio[edit]

Timeline of Greatest Hits Radio (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 NLIST. No WP:IS WP:RS showing this has been discussed as a group and list serves no CLN purpose. Unneeded CFORK of main article, which already contains an appropriate history.

The sourced entries here appear to be in Greatest Hits Radio so there is nothing to merge, no objection to a redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  11:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I am unsure as to why this article has been nominated for deletion. It currently has 69 references, almost all of the from independent sources, and contains significant information which is not included in the station's history.Rillington (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The most valid policy reason to keep a content fork such as this is WP:DIFFORK. In my opinion there are arguments for and against this being an acceptable DIFFORK. —siroχo 17:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, History, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Per nom, this duplicates information that already exists in the Greatest Hits Radio article for apparently no reason. Flip Format (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Radio station timelines include information such as station presenter changes which can only be collated within a station timeline. Therefore, this timeline provides information which is not contained within the station's article. Rillington (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to Greatest Hits Radio. Timelines can be useful, but I don't see a strong need for this to be separate from the main article. This is borderline as a WP:DIFFORK, but almost certainly should not be deleted outright. —siroχo 17:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merging is the equivalent of deleting as all the information contained would be lost, and here it would mean that significant levels of information contained within in it, and not available elsewhere, would disappear.Rillington (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to Greatest Hits Radio. There are timelines for many things but they have to meet GNG too for getting their own article. CharlesWain (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I don't see the need to delete this article, nor to merge. It feels like change/an action for the sake of it. It was this particular article that I first came across and learnt about the history of Greatest Hits Radio, not from the main Greatest Hits Radio article itself so from personal experience, I know it does have its place. It is one of the articles that encouraged me to become a more active editor on Wikipedia (not just on this particular article, but on those regarding other topics)

I don't see how it fails NLIST - "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" The group is question is the history/origins, dating back over 30 years, of one of the largest radio networks, in terms of number of stations, geographical spread and audience size, in the UK. If that's not notable, what is?!

Regarding WP:IS/WP:RS, multiple independent and reliable references show that Ofcom has had to make decisions about whether to grant permission to/approve requests from the network over the years. Those decisions will have involved discussion and consultation regarding this group of information both to assess the state of the market/radio industry at that time, and what effects, negative or positive, granting/approving such requests would have on the market and the relevant audiences.

At least 5 different BBC stations have similar "Timeline of..." articles, despite also having History sections in their main articles. I do not object to that, nor has anyone else judging by the complete absence of deletion or merge requests identical to this in the Revision history pages. Why single out this particular Timeline article for deletion or merging?

The only change I'd be willing to support is trimming the History section on the main Greatest Hits Radio article, and maintaining the existing redirection for "Further Information" to this article. People who are primarily visiting the main GHR article for current/up-to-date information about the channel (presenters, radio frequencies/availability on platforms, list of local variations etc) will be able to access that while not having to scroll past as much historical information, but will also be able to easily access the further detail this Timeline article provides. Idontunderstandthesandstormmeme (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: Well sourced and passes WP:GNG. It's not like Greatest Hits Radio isn't a notable topic. This is Paul (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

● Keep - Very detailed & well referenced with independent reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep – I personally think it's a little odd to have such a detailed timeline for a radio station; however, it is well-documented with reliable sources so I think it's worth keeping. I particularly object to the votes to merge it into the main article, as I think a timeline of this detail would be ill-suited for the history section of the article. Dan ● ✉ 15:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I'm closing this as a Soft Delete but the nominator is reminded that "Unsourced" is not a valid deletion rationale. Please include more information in your nomination statement that demonstrates you have done a thorough BEFORE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diario Democráticamente[edit]

Diario Democráticamente (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. Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Being unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion. Did you make sure to look for sources before nominating for deletion? Industrial Insect (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Did you make sure it is not a hoax? Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The author has removed the invitation from his Talk page. Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Companies, and Paraguay. Skynxnex (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: the best I was able to ascertain is that it probably exists. From that to notability is a long way. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Omgili[edit]

Omgili (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)

By my before, fails WP:NCORP. gidonb (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and Israel. gidonb (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. A related AfD (same owner) is held on the following company: Webz.io. gidonb (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 13:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Nothing found for a search engine company, this [12] with the same name, I don't think it's the same company. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Mongolian films of 1938[edit]

List of Mongolian films of 1938 (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 NLIST and CLN. Single entry list, entry is does not have an article. No sources showing this has been discussed as a group meeting NLIST, or has a nav purpose meeting CLN  // Timothy :: talk  13:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete – single entry list (as noted), already covered by Lists of Mongolian films (which should itself be changed from a list-of-lists to a regular list) Dan ● ✉ 15:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: this one is even worse than the WP:Articles for deletion/List of Mongolian films of 1936 I just started. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Mongolia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Listed at Lists of Mongolian films, baffled why this would need to be a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, another venue for such material could be 1938 in Mongolia - neither it or the film in question have articles currently. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The standard process here is that a country gets one base List of Mongolian films first, and separate lists by year get spun off only when the omnibus list has come to contain hundreds or thousands of films that need to be chunked out for size management purposes. The base list already exists, however, and it isn't nearly long enough yet to need splitouts. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Redirect to List of Mongolian films, per WP:ATD-R. BD2412 T 13:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I agree with Geschichte here. We are considering deleting an article that other editors have created and worked on. There needs to be a thorough BEFORE done and a better deletion rationale that "Fails WP:GNG". If a BEFORE was done, than please include that information in your nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selin Köseoğlu[edit]

Selin Köseoğlu (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:GNG. Kadı Message 12:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Turkey. Kadı Message 12:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep :@Kadı Quoting WP:CREATIVE The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). I believe the person satisfies this with two separate works: Price of Passion and İkinci Bahar. Koseoglu's role is important in both works, and both works have received very significant press coverage. Gorkem80 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Procedural keep, the nomination does not address the state of the article in any way. Geschichte (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Geschichte, I didn't understand what you mean? Kadı Message 08:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I mean that you threw in a boilerplate reason for deletion without tying it to the article in any way. Geschichte (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. As a reminder, you can't toss in untagged articles into the middle of the discussion. They are not part of the original AFD nomination. Feel free to start up new AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2024–25 Young Lions FC season[edit]

2024–25 Young Lions FC season (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)

Way WP:TOOSOON, + WP:GNG fail. Govvy (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Singapore. CptViraj (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: don't draftify. We need to discourage this type of wikisquatting on a likely future title to show up as the article creator. A stub is fine, but this isn't even that. Owen× ☎ 16:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete – As Owen× said. Svartner (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, a form of Wikipedia editing that should be promptly discouraged. The "article" is copied and pasted from 2023; all the transfers occurred in 2023. Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also:

2024–25 Selangor F.C. season

2024–25 Albirex Niigata Singapore FC season

2024–25 Balestier Khalsa FC season

2024–25 Lion City Sailors F.C. season

2024–25 Johor Darul Ta'zim F.C. season

2024–25 BG Tampines Rovers FC season

2024–25 Tanjong Pagar United FC season

2024–25 Hougang United FC season

• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Articles should only be about the men's 1st team. Dougal18 (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as above. The other similar articles should be nominated separately. GiantSnowman 11:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per all above - anyone that wishes to put the other articles to the sword as well has my full support Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Castlevania characters#Soma Cruz. ^Complex/_Rational 16:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soma Cruz[edit]

Soma Cruz (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 article literally had an AfD this year proving it wasn't notable, but I guess we have to do this a second time. The article's reception relies on particularly heavy WP:REFBOMBing, with one of the most content-full sources being a bachelor's thesis of dubious reliability. The majority of others are listicle type articles or trivial mentions in reviews of the game itself. There have not been any new sources made apparent since the previous AfD that prove Soma is a notable character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Upon review, Soma Cruz meets the criteria set forth by WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION with substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. His character has been the focus of detailed discussions by game developers and in the gaming press, addressing his design, narrative role, and the broader impact on the Castlevania series. These discussions extend beyond routine game coverage, contributing to a broader understanding of his significance in video game history. The character's influence is recognized by industry professionals, who even further affirm his notability. The available sources provide a solid foundation for a standalone article, ala compliance with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability standards. Let games begin!

PD Slessor (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PD Slessor: Given that the previous AfD months earlier found the precise opposite of this, that there were not in fact enough substantial secondary sources, what exactly are the WP:THREE best sources that prove this? Otherwise it amounts to a paragraph-long WP:SOURCESEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, red card. Let the games pause for a moment. This is all fine and dandy, but saying something is notable "because xyz" doesn't help. Please give extensive sources about this subject. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: I can't see that much has changed since last AfD in May; this is just name drops [13], this is a trivial paragraph [14] that mentions the character once. No coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Restore Redirect - Nothing has changed in regards to sourcing and notability for the character since the previous AFD from earlier this year that resulted in a unanimous consensus that a stand alone page for the character was not appropriate. Discounting the copious amounts of in-game quotes being used as references, pretty much all of the coverage in reliable sources are just ridiculously trivial mentions, or cherry picked quotes from general reviews of the game/franchise that mention him, being used as a WP:REFBOMB to give the illusion of significant coverage. Given that the previous AFD was so recent, had a clear consensus, and that the sourcing issues brought up in that AFD were not fixed or addressed, this really should not have been restored as an article without some kind of discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Redirect I'm afraid that my previous afd will be still the same, but weaker due to the article's improvement. It is shame that a user who worked really hard on the article that is not or almost passing the threshold. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It is unfortunate much work would be lost, but putting a lot of WP:HARDWORK into an article does not make it immune to deletion. The article was also purposely restored from a merge that recently happened, so there isn't really an excuse that "I didn't realize it may not be notable" either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Last Afd was closed as merge, but I can't find any merge in the target (It was redirected 31 May 2023). Christian75 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Restore redirect still not seeing WP:SIGCOV. Agree that people should discuss before trying to override a consensus. Consensus can change, but it's important to discuss. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Restore redirect. My thoughts generally align with Rorshacma's and Shooterwalker's above, and there is little for me to say that has already been said. I was quite surprised to see this character article recreated after a previous AfD when little new coverage seems to have appeared, and would agree that there is a lack of SIGCOV to support this character. The Night Watch (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commment I tried rearranging the reception to make it easier to understand again and I honestly don't notice the big problem. There are several articles dedicated to several parts of his character besides reviews such as his alternative portrayal as a villain, the potential media gives him if Netflix makes him a protagonist and comparisons between Soma and other video game characters that are main topic of the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - In short, because the sources are either not significant coverage, or does nothing beyond plot summary. Take the sources regarding the animated series - it literally just sprang from an interviewer asking the producer if the character would appear in the series, to which a vague "I can't say anything, but I like the character" response was given. And that is the only one that come close to being a reliable source on the topic. The other sources given are nothing but things like "Top 5" lists in which a couple of sentences are devoted to saying "We think Soma should appear in the series", or the ScreenRant article that does nothing but summarize the plot of Aria of Sorrow, and then say "maybe it will be adapted to the animated series some day". This is simply not significant coverage that provides any analysis of the character at all, and a dozen such sources of similar quality simply does not pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Per WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." If those secondary sources are not significant, and only primary sources are, then we get to this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raj Mathur[edit]

Raj Mathur (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)

Do not appear to be sufficient RS to show notability JMWt (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also may be worth stating that the person who created the page has been blocked as a sock. JMWt (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and India. JMWt (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Trivial coverage used for sourcing. The name is too common to pull up this individual, I tried adding "linux" to Gsearch using his name, still too much stuff comes up, unrelated to this person (or nothing at all in Gnews). Delete for lack of sourcing. Likely not notable as an individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Valley Lake Ranchos, California[edit]

Valley Lake Ranchos, California (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)

Disputed PROD. This location is a subdivision, not a community. The user who contested the PROD added a couple of references, which is appreciated, but these are just routine mentions of legal matters. The consensus on subdivisions and other informal settlements is that they are subject to WP:GNG, and that bar is not met in this case because the sources cited are routine and not in-depth, and GNIS (which was originally the only cited source) does not establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Thanks for bringing this to AfD – definitely worth further discussion rather than simply PROD. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Undeveloped land with a history of failed development plans does not meet guidelines, I can't see anything that indicates this is more than just that. NGEO points to GNG and this fails. Nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  13:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete This locale lacks any significant notability whatsoever. TH1980 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vectra AI[edit]

Vectra 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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Citation #3, #5, #6, and #8 (4 out of 9) are sources that are primary and not independent of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: This talks about the company [15] and a company discussion paper by PwC [16] Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: Various articles that are not PRs mentioning that the company found a vulnerability in Microsoft Teams [17] [18] [19] and an article on Nasdaq [20]GetMeTheMoon (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still feel this debate could do with a little bit more input to firm up consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak keep - my initial reaction was to argue for "keep" as the nomination is malformed. If four of the nine sources in the article aren't in-depth and independent, then that means 5 are. But looking at those remaining sources, 1 is not independent (company's former website), 2 looks in-depth and independent, 4 is not independent (paper produced by topic), 7 is a list, and 9 looks independent. So I think there's two good sources in the article. I don't think the sources brought up in the above discussion are all that great, a lot of quoting the company, but added together I think a somewhat-useful NPOV and V article can be created for our readers, per WP:WHYN. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]