< December 01	December 03 >

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. Neither of the keep !votes offer a valid rationale to keep the article in this situation, and I find the nomination and Suonii180's comments the most compelling. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kerr Cuhulain[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet NBIO or the GNG. The two references are both articles written by the subject. Google searches return more writing by the subject, but little in the way of sourcing about the subject. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Paganism. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article about well known Satanist. 174.240.65.238 (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 16:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But more citations need to be added. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any citations in mind? My concern is that adequate citations don't seem to exist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I could find references to his writing, I couldn't find independent in-depth sources about the subject himself. Suonii180 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 17:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Først & sist[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of notability. (PS. Not exactly elaborated, but reflecting the nominator's utterly lazy statement. I also started improving it by adding a reference.) Geschichte (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added 3 refs that were used in the Norwegian Wikipedia's article. The article states this show ran 17 seasons and "was, at the time, the most-viewed talk show in the Nordic countries." Clearly notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been added. /Julle (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Julle. History6042 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hakim Bappy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous nomination resulted in deletion. Player not notable under WP:GNG and notability has not evolved since. Sources not showing any quality coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Bangladesh. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source check this independent source about the player before nominating him for deletion. FNH004 (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman check this source (with google translate) FNH004 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One decent source is not enough. Giant Snowman 15:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - Let me draft this article so I can improve it. Currently it only has one good source but its not bad enough to be deleted its way better sourced than the previous article which got deleted.FNH004 (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Per article creator. They should be given the chance to improve the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per above. Svartner (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I believe this can be improved. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft per FNH004 RedBaron213 (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G11 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ndifreke Ukpong[edit]

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

Non-notable author, fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Potential WP:SALT due to re-creation. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Nigeria. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep article.

I will add more reliable source to it. Nansyy (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to the recreation history here, this item has been created on Wikidata 13 times, and creation has been blocked by a filter a further 12 times. This doesn't speak directly to the notability of the subject, but it does speak to the creator's motivation, conflict of interest, and unwillingness to abide by our policies. Bovlb (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much for your contribution to wikipedia.

I always read the guidelines, which is very important, I can't go against the policies. Nansyy (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put it up for speedy deletion, and blocked the author for undeclared paid editing. Note that this article is related to the equally spammy Draft:How to Overcome Challenges in Life. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfield High School 2023 Football Season[edit]

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

No indication of importance. Non-notable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recommend WP:PROD for cases like this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the page because my school just won state and I wanted to make a page to honor it. Trevor.jones 10 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevor.jones 10: That's very interesting, but this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it isn’t important doesn’t mean it needs to be deleted. Wikipedia has all sorts of football related things that people could care less about as well. Trevor.jones 10 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are around because they follow WP:GNG and WP:NSEASON. Your article has not shown to pass either of these criteria. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 23:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSEASON. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 23:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a bit to Delete per nom. Mayfield High School (Kentucky)#Athletics has the title listed (by year); that's enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This doesn't appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASON. Title is already listed in the article for the high school so no need for any merging of content User:Let'srun 00:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, fails WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
bruh yall took off the sources so of course its unsourced yall take yalls job to seriously Trevor.jones 10 (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to give the kid a fighting chance here. Just went through the article and did some citation and clean-up. Mistamystery (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trevor.jones 10: No one has a job here— see WP:VOLUNTEER. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevor.jones 10: If there are sources, you can present them here. Cbl62 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Baker (journalist)[edit]

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

There seems to be no citations, nothing to establish notability. She is just some random French journalist who wants to abolish compulsory education and prisons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2013creek (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although there are external links, this article has been unreferenced since at least 2016. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment , I think the article in the moment is clearly lacking in information. However since it already exists in several languages and she is an author I would rather Keep it as a stub. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the languages is an almost content-less stub. Several others are mere translations of the French Wikipedia, equally as lacking in sources as it itself is, except that they don't point it out like the French Wikipedia does with a notice at the top of the article. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Kojavak (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) — Kojavak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage at all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fr-wiki article -- which one would expect to be the best -- is similarly poor, and suitable RS sigcov have not been provided for any version in almost 20 years. She has a common name (I've just removed one incorrect wikilink), and insufficient coverage appears using her name plus "unschooling"/"non-scolarisation". She is quote in a paragraph of "The Wiley Handbook of Home Education", and a few papers but I don't believe that it is sufficient for consideration against GNG or NACADEMIC. ~~(I'd be ok with a redirect and brief capsule coverage at unschooling if independent secondary coverage of her work/ideas were used/cited).~~ ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at fr:Catherine Baker per Hydronium Hydroxide and that has been tagged as lacking non-autobiographical sources since 2021. Both articles in both languages have the same problem. I went looking, and found no documentation of this person's life and exactly one book review of this person's works, in Livres hebdo in 1985. Unfortunately, it seems to be not reliable, because it claimed that Baker was "Ex-journaliste, fondatrice de l'«agence de presse Libération»". But in fact there is no such person recorded as a founder of Agence de presse Libération (a.k.a. Agence de presse APL [fr]), so apparently the book review wasn't checking facts. (Ironically, here are two Wikipedias, 20 years after that, outright ignoring "Ex-journaliste" in 1985 anyway.) The one source that the French Wikipedia cites that isn't the article subject documenting the article subject, turns out to be a 1 sentence mention. There just isn't enough independent and reliable documentation existing to write a biography from, here.
Aside: I found Hydronium Hydroxide's "several papers" independently. It's 3, one of which is a footnote when one reads it, one of which is a doctoral thesis that I have no access to, and one of which merely states that people started pushing the text of Insoumission à l’école obligatoire on-line in the early 2000s. Guess when this article and the French Wikipedia's article were written!
Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references and no real claim to notability. 128.252.210.3 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lalrampana Pauta[edit]

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

None of the sources provided actually address this footballer in any great detail, meaning that WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG are not met, the former not accepting database sources. The best sources that I can find are The Print and Football Counter, neither of which are more than a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buck (video game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on a cancelled video game that I do not believe passes the WP:GNG. While the article cites several references, these are all merely reporting on its initial Kickstarter. I can find no actual coverage of the game in reliable sources from after this period, or even on the game itself rather than on the kickstarter that funded it. Rorshacma (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Kickstarter Compendium link is not dead, it's located here. That said, I am not seeing SIGCOV here that is sufficient for a standalone article. It's mostly trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [1] is a pretty good source, but nothing else stands out as in-depth enough to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Even if the short PC Gamer article could be considered SIGCOV, it alone isn't enough. --Mika1h (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a rough consensus to Delete and the copyright questions seal the deal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Ingar Jakobsen[edit]

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

Sources are either from his website (source 1), written by him (source 5) or provide no significant coverage (sources 2-4). No indication of WP:NMUSICIAN. Also a likely WP:COI creation, as the author created the two articles in the first paragraph (since deleted). Google search also doesn't show anything useful. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Norway. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added more links and content to make the article more relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpfhoby (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC) — Morpfhoby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please assess expansion of article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: How on earth can you use his own website as a source?!?! MaskedSinger (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Yes, his website has been used as source for things like his year of birth, and which town he was born in. All the other main achievements, as his published books, rewards, productions and work for musical theatre are covered with other sources as newspaper articles, press reviews, publications from publishers etc.I therefore still think it should be kept. Morpfhoby (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Smells like COI, should be come from AFC process. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well the publicity photograph is filched directly off the subject's own copyrighted WWW site. Let's see about the article text, with the subject's own autobiography on the left and Special:Permalink/1184636506 (the article as nominated for deletion) on the right:

Subsequent edits such as Special:Diff/1184661405 have lifted more sentences straight from the autobiography and attributed them to some other source. This isn't original writing. This is a foundational copyright violation of an autobiography. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I have deleted the content where his website was the source, and therefor also the content that did quote his homepage. I therefor think the copyright problem and reliable source problem now should be solved. Morpfhoby (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 gnews hits says it all, fails WP:BIO. Possible promotional article by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3 gnews hits says it all – no, not really. Offline sources could potentially exist. See also the National Library's 600 newspaper results for his name, which is just as useless a gauge for notability on WP. This article isn't something I'm particularly invested in, so I'll let someone else do the digging here, but it is likely that there are enough in-depth sources about the subject to warrant inclusion. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG in the sense that the sourcing presented is either not indepdenent or not significant coverage. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces#Commanders. With a BLP, there are enough questions about the sourcing quality to keep this from remaining as a standalone. However no clear consensus to delete the content despite the socking and potential UPE. Therefore it remains under the redirect. Star Mississippi 18:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Xolmuhamedov[edit]

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

This biography of a living person is extremely poorly-sourced, and my internet searches didn't unearth any decent sources at all. —S Marshall T/C 16:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 16:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Noting that the article was started by sockpuppet User:AyodeleA2, sock of now-banned sockmaster User:Aa372798.—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Frank Anchor 20:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect and selective merge to Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces#Commanders as an ATD per Hydronium Hydroxide's suggestion below. This is a reasonable WP:ATD Frank Anchor 16:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, and the added detail of having been started by a sock. Though subject matter started by a sock could of its own merit be notable of course, this one does not seem to meet GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: That this article was created by a sockpuppet is immaterial. What is important is that there are no sources to establish notability. Searches in Russian and Uzbek (lotin, kiril) turn up nothing more than the presidential order cited on the ruwiki page, which does not make the subject notable. Akakievich (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't quite believe that anyone would seriously believe that the commander of a large sovereign state's air force wasn't notable. Pure WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. wp:anybio the subject is a recipient of the Shon-Sharaf Order and made recognised contributions as a 4 star general and the commander of the Uzbekistan airforce. Also, I agree with Necrothesp it’s just a sad state of affairs. 223.29.224.203 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's received these awards and been made 4 star general and commander of the Uzbekistan airforce and so on according to which reliable source? Cite it.—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per this source 154.81.230.102 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have grave concerns about that source's reliability, as explained below.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I urge all of the community members to not evaluate this subject with western media standards. Imagine Gen. Michael Langley's article under discussion just because someone tried to evaluate him under sources available in Uzbekistan for him. To complete my argument,

confirming his appointment as a major general and Commander of Air Defence Forces and Air Force (Presidential Order) [2]
confirming he's a 4 star Major General (No. 48) [3]

His complete biography is mentioned here. It is The Center for Military-Political Research (CVPR) at Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Including the multiple national award he received (Red star medal, Shon-Sharaf etc.) - [4]91.193.181.182 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I am usually the first person to object to an article being removed based on lack of available sources in the Anglophone media, but in this case I really have been unable to find independent, substantial sources regarding Abdulla Xolmuhamedov. A Presidential Order of Uzbekistan is not independent, and a list of generals is not substantial. Uzbekistan has plenty of independent and semi-independent media outlets, publishing houses, newspapers, etc, so I find this surprising.

Do you know of any sources (in any language) that discuss Xolmuhamedov at any length, and are independent from the Armed Forces of Uzbekistan? If we had even one such source, that would change my view considerably. Akakievich (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no matter what part of the planet an article subject is from, there need to be some RS offering SIGCOV to satisfy verifiabiity and notability standards. Do the sources offered in this discussion supply that?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. Properly sourced. NYC Guru (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject and article is appropriately sourced. Kojavak (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) — Kojavak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Which of the horrible sources in this article do you two say is proper and appropriate, and why?—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NB: this editor was since blocked for repeatedly offering outright incorrect advice at the teahouse and flaming other users; this response is likely a troll Akakievich (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NYCGuru and Necrothesp. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we have a problem in this AfD, and it's that people are showing up to assert the sources are sufficient, when they self-evidently are not. Let me try to trigger a discussion about these sources that people are saying are okay. We have:

This, a presidential bulletin announcing Mr Xolmuhamedov's promotion to Major General;
This, which triggers a virus alert when I click on it;
This, an online CV; and
This, which is four lines of text in an archive.

Now, let's read this in the light of the relevant policy, which is WP:BLP. If we're going to follow the policy, then we're required to, and I quote:

Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources

.

Because this is a contested deletion, AfD is the only venue I can use to be very firm. Please help me follow core policy. The weird pretence that these sources are okay needs to stop, please, because they self-evidently are not.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for this. "This article should be kept despite the lack of suitable sources to establish notability" is an understandable position, although I doubt it will carry much weight. "This article should be kept because suitable sources exist" is not, because not a single suitable source has actually been presented and this is clear to anyone who has as much as read the guidelines. Akakievich (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an online CV, it is Reliable source as it's managed by Russian Foreign Ministry, It has significant coverage and it is Independent as subject does not belong to Russia. It can be considered a primary sources but it checks all the conditions to be an acceptable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.181.182 (talk • contribs)

But it is a CV. Its format and content are totally CV-like. You're right to say that its domain name suggests it's hosted by the Russian Foreign Ministry. We Wikipedians wouldn't normally evaluate the Russian government as a highly reliable source. I agree that the Russian government is unlikely to be lying, but they have an obvious interest in promoting their allies, and they have a history of telling the truth selectively. They omit key details.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not want to be too decisive on behalf of other community members. The source is being discussed here and as of now the result is quite opposite. 91.193.181.182 (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:ANYBIO, the subject meets clause 1 and 2. This reliable source already discussed above confirms that he has received well-known and significant awards and that he has made recognized contributions in a specific field.

Also, I would want to bring WP:NOTBURO into this discussion as the subject is clearly a positive entry and is improving the encyclopaedia. The policy states:

Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them

154.81.230.102 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is relisted again, please consider doing so with a semi-protected AfD.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Why, exactly? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Standard measure for managing IP addresses pushing or advocating for a non-source-based outcome.—S Marshall T/C 13:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - The IPs contributing here have put forward perfectly valid arguments. You just don't agree with them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have put forward a perfectly valid argument, which I find fairly convincing – I do think WP could benefit from some idea of which subjects are inherently notable without always descending into arguments about GNG. However, that's not the same argument made by all the IP editors here. Most either refer to the Shon-Sharaf Order (which kicks the can down the road, because then we need to discuss whether that makes a subject notable), or simply insist that the sources present are sufficient. This is plainly not the case! There is absolutely no way we can generate consensus here when a significant number of the participants insist that unsuitable sources are in fact absolutely fine, and then do not expand or reply to any of our questions. This is kind of a problem, because it exploits a fundamental weakness in the AfD system: if you want to stop an article being deleted, you don't actually need to establish consensus that its subject is notable, or even make any credible arguments whatsoever to support that claim – in fact, it's probably easier to make enough unsupported statements that consensus becomes impossible and the nomination is inevitably closed as having no consensus (as I suspect will happen here). Akakievich (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a no consensus close as appropriate, and if this were closed as no consensus at this stage, then I would proceed directly to deletion review. I've cited the relevant policy, and I wish sysops like Necrothesp would uphold it. It asks for high-quality sources. Note that last word -- it's plural. More than one source is required. So even if we conceded that this is a reliable source for a BLP (and for the avoidance of doubt I most certainly do not concede that), we're still only halfway there. Without two (2) reliable sources this content can't meet core policy.—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think WP could benefit from some idea of which subjects are inherently notable without always descending into arguments about GNG. We had one of those. It said all general, air and flag officers were inherently notable. But sadly the deletionists got their way and it was swept away. So here we are! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while maybe notable via WP:ANYBIO, its a BLP without enough reliable sources. Unknown-Tree (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/(brief merge): Per this deprecation discussion and WP:NSOLDIER there is not a presumption of notability for senior military personnel, and WP:BIO must be met. There's currently a distinct lack of independent sigcov sufficient to meet WP:BASIC (noting that sources may be in Russian or in Latin or Cyrillic forms of Uzbek, that there's multiple romanisations possible of his name, and that it looks like names can be inflected, which doesn't make searching easier). A reasonable alternative to deletion is redirection to Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces#Commanders and brief -- brief -- capsule coverage. What must not stand, regardless of the outcome of this AFD, however, is this parasitic insertion. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me what rule, policy, or *anything* claims a copy of referenced text as I did from one article to another detrimental? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I came across a related discussion at RS and this piqued my interest. A quick search brought up a result in Russian that has not been mentioned here, I believe. This is a reproduction of an article published in the Military-industrial courier (n° 30 (97) of 2005), a Russian weekly specialising in military affairs which appears to have gone under (at least in its online version - had it been up it would probably be better to just go with the original). It's not extensive coverage by any means, but he's mentioned as Uzbekistan's head of the Air Force with the rank of colonel, and at the same time acting as deputy minister of defence. The context is a general discussion of the capabilities and responsibilities of members of the joint CIS air defense programme (there was a time when this was a thing!). The same site also has a CV of the individual in question here. As for the site itself, since for the CV they would be the source, this is how they describe their project. The site certainly has a very "vintage" feel to it, the description is generic and the names are unknown to me, but I also think we could be doing a lot worse. Ostalgia (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source doesn't _say_ anything about Xolmuhamedov though, other than that he existed and was deputy defense minister and commander of the air force. He gets one line at the very end of the article. Not significant coverage. If that's the bar we're working with, we might as well include this article from Новый Калининград, which does at least come from an independent source (although possibly not reliable and certainly not sigcov, so it doesn't count towards GNG). So far, by my count, we still don't have a single piece of material which counts towards GNG. Akakievich (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was quite explicit in stating that this did not constitute significant coverage? Ostalgia (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my apologies, i missed the 'not' in your message and interpreted it as saying the exact opposite. yep, we agree. Akakievich (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry I missed this. I agree that it's not significant coverage, but it gets us over the WP:V bar, at least. What do we think about its reliability?—S Marshall T/C 20:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I spent five minutes on this website and I have to say I've never raised my eyebrows quite so far in my life.

ЦентрАзия - это полное отсутствие каких-либо политических и национальных пристрастий.
CentrAsia represents the complete absence of any political or national biases.

hmm. well, I kind of have a history with Russian-produced sources covering Central Asia, but I'm going to evaluate this neutrally. no cherry-picking. let's take the most recent (at time of writing) news story linked on the front page. [5]

Руководство США будет пытаться затянуть конфликт на Украине как можно дольше для того, чтобы со временем обескровить Россию.
The US leadership will try to draw out the conflict in Ukraine for as long as possible in order to bleed Russia dry over time.

hmm, this seems kind of like the debunked pro-Russian talking point according to which NATO countries are using Ukraine as an instrument with which to attack Russia. what's this doing on a website about Central Asia, anyway?!

Интересно другое - вывод американского "стратега", согласно которому вряд ли из этой идеи что-то получится. И знаете, почему? Украина, оказывается, отнюдь не Афганистан, и там нет гор с пещерами, где можно укрыться. А потому русские могут уничтожить новоявленных моджахедов и вообще все, что движется, ракетным огнем.
Another interesting thing is the conclusion of the American “strategist”, according to whom it is unlikely that anything will come of this idea. And do you know why? Ukraine, it turns out, is no Afghanistan, there are no mountains with caves to hide in. Thus the Russians can destroy the newfound Mujahideen and, in fact, everything that moves, with missile fire.

wh-what? surely the most concerning thing about this entire story is the comparison of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the Mujahideen? what's this doing on a website about Central Asia, anyway?!

И оба раза после ухода русских войск здесь происходил либо русский "холокост", начавшийся в 1915 г., либо еврейско-польский геноцид (тоже холокост), начавшийся в 1941 г.
And both times, the departure of Russian troops was followed either by a Russian "holocaust" in 1915, or a Jewish-Polish (also holocaust), which started in 1941.

This contortion of history is somehow beyond offensive, I don't think I could come up with this stuff even if I tried. In case I really need to explain: the execution of 30 Russophiles in Galicia (for aiding an invading army) is in no way comparable to the damn holocaust!!!

The rest of the article is a rambling account of western "interference" in Ukraine, including some corkers such as "America has been pumping Ukraine full of arms and russophobia since the first Euromaidan in 2004" (there was no "Euromaidan" in 2004). I won't discuss this any further, it's not even relevant to Central Asia and I have absolutely no idea why it's here.

ok, let's move on, this is already FAR too long. Let's try and assess the reliability another way. I'm going to click the first link I find on the homepage that clearly has something to do with Central Asia and does not relate to current affairs. [6]

Геноцид. Русские в Казахстане. Трагическая судьба
Genocide: Russians in Qazaqstan. A tragic fate

This is a book advertised for sale. At first, I thought it might have something to do with Asharshylyk, or Qazaq Famine. But a brief look online as well as at the contents page reveals that it's actually promoting the idea that Russians have been subject to genocide in Qazaqstan, a conspiracy theory so absurd that I can't even find any overviews to link to on the English-speaking internet. (for reference: this is invoked by raving nationalists and extremist politicians whenever the Qazaq government tries to increase the prominence of the Qazaq language at the expense of Russian. controversial? maybe. genocide? hell no.) All I can find are Russian-language blog posts and speeches by Dmitry Medvedev, which as a fact probably speaks for itself. At this point I'm going to stop because I've been asked in the past not to use profanity on Wikipedia talk pages.

I'm sorry to post something so long on an already-bloated AfD discussion, but I hope this short excursion gives you some kind of insight into the profound derangement embodied by this website. I do not think this is a reliable source. Akakievich (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO, WP: NOTBURO, and WP:5P5 is totally being neglected here in this discussion. The subject is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Source [3] is reliable and part of MGIMO. I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt it’s reliability. The same website is used on multiple articles as a source on the English Wikipedia. 91.193.181.182 (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is still ongoing even after 2 weeks. Any more consideration of Redirect suggestion? I have no opinion but I don't want it to be buried in the comments here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say yet another thing in this AfD, but as Hydronium Hydroxide rightly says, Buckshot06 just merged this article to Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces. Therefore deleting Abdulla Xolmuhamedov would create a WP:PATT problem. If the consensus is to delete Abdulla Xolmuhamedov and the closer doesn't have time to perform a complex page history merge, the closer's welcome to ping me so I can resolve the attribution problem using a terms of use compliant attribution page (as I did at, for example, Talk:Rail transport in Great Britain/Attribution). If the consensus is to redirect to Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces and the merge stays, then the redirect page needs to be tagged with ((R from merge)) to preserve attribution. Personally I'm with Hydronium Hydroxide that the merge should be reverted, which is a much simpler way to solve all the attribution problems.—S Marshall T/C 23:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just like Saydulla Madaminov article I have serious concerns that the article can be a paid for affair. Also I have sifted throught the sources, and only one^[1] talks at some length about the person. All of the rest are just his name on lists of people, intended to confirm him having an award or having graduated an academy. Unless any of you can added more RS, i would say it both failed to show notability and is not reliably sourced. F.Alexsandr (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with S Marshall et al throughout this debate that the sourcing provided is not reliable and independent, and therefore GNG is not met. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source is not only reliable but also affiliated with MGIMO. There is no apparent reason to question its reliability, especially considering its frequent usage across multiple articles. Furthermore, a discussion regarding its reliability was also initiated here.2407:D000:D:38DC:C99C:1164:5E51:A2C8 (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InterExec[edit]

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

Non-notable company, delivering routine services. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pigsonthewing, can you add a deletion rationaleabove? AllyD (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. That's odd, because I typed it in the Twinkle dialogue, but it doesn't seem to have saved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a niche executive employment agency, with significant aspects of the firm's history not covered. Richard Donkin's 2005 FT article that is the sole source covers their problems relative to the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (which also had some mention in the article until this IP edit) and mentioned profitability issues. See also the more recent Companies House details for Interexec Network Ltd. However, even with reversion and extension, these aspects would not add up to notability here. The available coverage of the firm ([7], [8], both in advertorial tone, plus articles and quotes from the company's own executives) are insufficient to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources presented do not meet the threshold required for GNG. Daniel (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Washington Goes to War[edit]

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

Nothing on the page seems to show how the GNG or NBOOK have been met. I'm not seeing much else JMWt (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is one review and it won awards, failing that merge to Martha Washington (comics) per WP:PRESERVE would be preferable to deletion. BOZ (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is Frank Miller so influential that this will meet WP:BKCRIT criterion 5? Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be inclined to say yes.★Trekker (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book won an Eisner Award, notability is claimed and established.★Trekker (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gales's Contemporary literary criticism. Annual cumulative title index, Covers volumes 1-306 indicates that there were several reviews, covered in their volume 278. (The entry is "Martha Washington Goes to War (Miller) 278:138, 141-42, 144, 149, 152, 161, 169"). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CRON Systems[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Charlie (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ujawal Jha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Likely UPE, contested draftification so we're here with factors not appreciably changing since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ujawal Jha. Suggest SALT since the SPI wasn't conclusive. Star Mississippi 17:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Star Mississippi 17:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The way he has been covered in most sources isn't considered reliable. It's most likely paid PR! Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 17:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same concerns as last time, no coverage at home, only covered in Nigerian sources? The iffy quality of these sources with no by-lines or the usual paid promo we see there is enough to make this non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero coverage in Nepal, limiting it to .np sources [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems to be drafted at Draft:Ujawal Jha. – 64andtim ^(talk) 00:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. It was a poor choice to draftify in the first place. Because this is what happens. AFD is on and the article is gone; AFD will close and the article will be back. Draftification should only be done if there is consensus that draftification will help. No amount of editing can make a non-notable topic notable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 04:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I became aware of this person from the repeated recreation of items on them in Wikidata. Before requesting deletion of the Wikidata items, I did a search of the person's biography and sources and could not identify more than one article that wasn't sponsored content or other paid promotion. Considering that Wikidata has a much lower bar for notability, that should say something. Also I wonder if the creator of this article is doing undisclosed paid editing. -- William Graham ^talk 19:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Dorman[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Non-notable illustrator. SL93 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify ~~Delete~~ - The subject of this article is a non-notable illustrator. He does not meet GNG nor NARTIST criteria for notability. The existing sourcing is all primary, rather than WP:SIGCOV in fully independent reliable sources. An online BEFORE search reveals more primary sources and social media. It's definitely WP:TOOSOON for this artist. Netherzone (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this and have decided to change my iVote to Draftify as an alternative to deletion per Lightburst and Cielquiparle. Netherzone (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I see an artist with some non-trivial RS that borders on meeting WP:BASIC: like 1 or this inteview in a Mormon Artist Magazine 2 also this blurb 3 Lightburst (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lightburst, thank you for what you found in a BEFORE. I too like to save artists articles if there is potential. However, the first two you list are primary sources: interviews. The first does have some editorial content so might count towards notability, but the other does not have any editorial content, just simple questions. The third source you found is a press release, which also a primary source. These might work to back up claims, but anyone can say anything they want about themselves and we need what independent RS's say about the person to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Netherzone: I know it is thin. I look for ATD when I can and a draft is a good compromise IMO. Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding reliable sources for this article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The thing about illustrators of American children's books is that you have to look at all the reviews. There are quite a few in Newspapers.com, calling out Dorman's illustrations specifically. The other places I would look are ProQuest (overlaps with Newspapers.com but covers additional papers and can be easier to navigate) and Gale (includes magazine/journal reviews of illustrations) and of course EBSCOHost in Wikipedia Library. I would also strongly recommend getting rid of all the redlinks. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GMK Ltd[edit]

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

Whilst this is a relatively well-known distributor in the sporting goods market in the UK, outside of this niche it is quite non-notable. The article also cites no sources other than a single dead link.

Full of trivia like "In 2019 GMK installed electric car charging stations".

Further review of creator of article reveals that all this user's edits are to this article, suggesting that there might be some personal involvement and conflict of interest.

Overall a very poor quality article for a company which does not meet the threshold of notability. Elshad (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, Firearms, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems to fail NCORP. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WebCatalog[edit]

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

I disagree with the AfC acceptance. Ignoring Valnet content farm, non-independent sources, and simple database entries, there simply isn't enough information or reviews available to justify an article. The Indian Express piece is just a guide that happens use this application, nothing usable to make an article.

That leaves a short review and a showcase. I don't think those sources are enough to make a whole article. A WP:BEFORE check revea;ed no usable sources/reviews. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here are some notable sources: [10], [11] [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. I have added them to the article. It meets WP:NSOFT and/or WP:GNG. Annh07 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are those reliable sources? To me they look like:

Blog
Blog that looks suspiciously similar to the first one
Unreliable source (no information on editorial controll or the writer's credentials)
Blog
Unreliable source (no information on editorial controll or the writer's credentials)
Blog
Blog

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – could not locate any additional sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify again. This was already draftified before. Annh07 made some great improvements, but the sources are still too weak to imply notability. Owen× ☎ 21:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I support draftification as well, there are some content that could be useful if this software gets more coverage/reviews. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Here (film)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any criteria of NFILM. Does not have a page on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic that I could find, nor any reviews not hosted on either of those sites which I could find. The only sources on this page are listings for the screening they're about by the organizations hosting them, and none of the film festivals appear to be notable so their awards probably wouldn't count for much either. Too close to PROMO for comfort methinks. Is an orphan aside from a hatnote on From Here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Politics, Germany, and New York. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – ProQuest turns up some matches, but all are either listings of the films to be shown at the Human Rights Watch Film Festival, or copies of the same, presumably-press-release, source. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, nothing in RS. dxneo (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Testbook[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Repeated coverage by The Indian Express establishes notability. Owen× ☎ 21:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found 1, 2 and 3, Meets WP:SIGCOV. Passes WP:NCORP. Macbeejack (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It passes WP:NORG, having much coverage to pass it. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Berg[edit]

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

Swedish songwriter whose only notability is winning the 1991 edition of the Eurovision Song Contest. Although he wrote another song for Eurovision which placed 14th I believe this article falls down on WP:ONEEVENT and should be deleted. Recently dePRODded. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Sweden. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He still seems to be active. He was inducted in this Hall of Fame [17], this talks about him [18] but it's paywalled. This is also paywalled but describes his career and a documentary made about him [19]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly established and notable career as a songwriter. Part of the Hall of Fame. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep Melodifestivalen participant (as a songwriter). J 1982 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; apart of the Melodifestivalen Hall of Fame. (Swedish Wikipedia article) Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 18:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a Hall of Fame member for Melodifestivalen as explained above. Does need some improvement in the layout. Ktkvtsh (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Despite a number of comments that fail to cite any relevant policy, consensus is clearly that the subject is sufficiently covered in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Ballers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources available on this consist of a few anti-trans outlets rallying for the movie's message, and a few pro-trans outlets rallying against it. In all this, there is remarkably little coverage of the film itself, which has received no professional reviews – not that surprising given that it's self-distributed. In addition to the sources already in the article, none of which are WP:GENREL, I found the following:

The Washington Times, mostly a quote-farm of people involved in the production, with only a few sentences about the film itself, questionable source.
LGBTQ Nation, only a few sentences providing secondary coverage of the film, not significant coverage.
PinkNews, not significant coverage about the film, but a pretty good summary of my argument here: Aside from the rabid excitement from transphobic commentators, the response to the Lady Ballers trailer so far has been rather underwhelming.
Out, this stays maybe the most focused on the subject, but is still not significant coverage and is only based on the trailer; nobody seems to have reviewed the actual film. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Conservatism, and Sexuality and gender. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Professional movie critic reviews are not necessary for a film (or anything else) to be notable. I'm not sure why the proposer of this deletion is using such a criteria when judging the sources. 2001:4998:EF60:1B:0:0:0:1030 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A quick look at User:Maddy from Celeste's profile will all make sense as to why they nominated this article for deletion. Casint (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: independent coverage by Newsweek tipped the notability scale for me, despite them misspelling the title. Owen× ☎ 13:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek is hardly the most reliable source either, and I don't think that really adds much either. Most of it is just quoting user-generated reviews and social media, with a few sentences of actual secondary coverage. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent coverage include:

So that the article can be improved and expanded. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decider (website) is owned by WP:NYPOST
I don't see how this is significant coverage. A sentence or two about the film, and a bunch of social media quotes.
This looks ok, but really only tells us there were protestors at some of the filmings, and that the uni canceled.
Blog, but by what seems like a serious critic so probably ok.
Pride.com doesn't look like enough of an RS, and the author doesn't appear to be a professional critic.
This doesn't seem like a reliable source, and it's another one of those articles with little substance but many twitter quotes.
Looks like a blog, author seems to be only known for this blog.
This is anything but RS.
Blog by a serious critic, which would be okay, but it's also only based on the trailer and not as complete as I'd wish

As I see it, we have some bad sources, some more mediocre ones, and one or two blog posts by actual critics. So far, I'm not convinced that this film is actually notable. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Almost TOOSOON, although Rotten Tomatoes as zero ratings from critics, might have to wait a bit to see if any pick up the story. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it just came out yesterday, so I would concur with waiting for more coverage. Djkauffman (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's only streaming on the Daily Wire plus service and there are no reviews or any sort of discussion outside of the few sites mentioned. People don't seem to care about the film, no one is discussing it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm fine letting the AfD discussion run for a week or so, to see if any media we consider RS picks up the story (I have my doubts, based on the lack of anything at this point, but happy to be proven wrong). Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Too soon, move to WP:DRAFTSPACE. -- 109.77.193.78 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify : At least for now, there doesn't appear to be enough RS for a standalone article, but considering the movie just came out it seems reasonable to believe additional coverage will emerge. Let'srun (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]
- Changing to Keep now as the film now has enough GNG level coverage. WP:HEY applies. Let'srun (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above getting coverage (supportive and dismissive) in WP:RS as listed above, Ted Cruz cameo lends some notability. A strange deletion nomination. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the coverage noted above already establishes notability, and no doubt more coverage will appear, since this is culture-war catnip. Its official release date was yesterday.PopePompus (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like the sources above, especially Newsweek, definitely makes this a notable enough film for an article. CharlesBluth (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep well, Newsweek makes it notable enough but also there is enough celebrities and politicians playing in the movie that on its own it should be notable - Peterson, Cruz, Shapiro, Candace Owens are in the movie - doesn't that add to notability? I mean, Wikipedia reports on everything "well-known people" do so how is this not OK? Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i easily found two more sources and added them. material from LGBTQ magazine Out magazine as well as The Washington Times. Took 5 minutes. I am sure we could add even more if we really work at it. this is an easy keep nomination. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are those the ones I listed in my nomination? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a fairly lengthy positive review has appeared in the Washington Free Beacon ( https://freebeacon.com/culture/this-movie-will-make-you-rethink-everything-you-ever-learned-about-women-with-balls/ ) PopePompus (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also reviewed on msn.com: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/stream-it-or-skip-it-lady-ballers-on-dailywire-in-which-far-right-guys-try-to-dunk-on-trans-athletes/ar-AA1kS1hk PopePompus (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MSN is a reprint from Decider, which is likely not a RS. It's not listed in our Movie notability sources, nor in the general list we maintain. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The review happens to be published at Decider but John Serba is a freelance film critic who writes for various publications. I do not understand why a particular publication means that a film review, a clearly attributed opinion (WP:RSOPINION) of a specific individual should be reflexively excluded. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Yes, this is hosted by WordPress but Roger Moore's Movie Nation is a very notable film review website by an established critic and they just published a proper in-depth serious review. Even if some of the sources listed are subject to debate (rightly so or not), all in all, there are now more than enough reliable independent sources to establish the notability of a film according to WP. You can add this if you want international sources about the film.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts about the Movie Nation website, they don't have it listed in our movie resources page for notable sources. [25] Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all reliable sources are listed there. And apparently you concur it is reliable, below, am I right? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong KeepThe film's cast is packed with notable individuals, many of whom already have extensive wikipedia pages. A standing US Senator??? Freakin' Jordan Peterson, arguably the most influential human currently on earth??? It is very bizarre to nominate this article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.17.135 (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Influential to only a few people, Peterson was largely derided for complaining about having to take social media training here and turning it into a story. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To quote, there's no such thing as bad publicity. If he's "largely derided" this means that people at least know who he is. A widely known person makes it notable, regardless of the perception people have of that person. There are smaller Youtubers with wiki pages who are known less than he is. Godaistudios (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peterson has an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" a few people" He has 4.5 million X followrs 2607:FEA8:6C64:4300:591F:985E:86F4:2A88 (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
most of which could be bots, not useful for notability Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift probably all bots too. Delete her! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadhockey (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a legitimate movie not too different from many 90s comedies. Any deletion would appear to be agenda driven. roadhockey
Keep Not a surprising nom, but at this point, it seems like a WP:SNOWCLOSE and WP:SK may be in order. There is more than enough RS coverage and cultural interest for this article to exist on Wikipedia. ~ Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article could probably use some more sources, but there seems to be just enough to qualify this page for its own article per WP:GNG. At the very least, I would not be against draftifying it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's been out for a few days, and still zero mentions in the big daily press/tv things. Does not appear notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Toto and Roger Moore have reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes, here's the link: [26] Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a movie on a streaming service. Are we going to start picking and choosing which streaming services are notable? It has famous people in it, like Ted Cruz and Jordan Peterson and Riley Gaines. The Critical Drinker reviewed it. Others will doubtless review it, if reviews are what make a movie notable. RussNelson (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks lame and I probably won't see it, but it's hilarious watching the Wikipedia Usual Suspects fuming over it. Dr Clyde Crashcup (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Permission to strike this vote? This user obviously has no intention to add anything to the discussion. Industrial Insect (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He added a keep. His vote stays in.70.55.17.135 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote Industrial Insect (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, fuming. Dr Clyde Crashcup (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lacking adequate sources or coverage does not mean that a film is not notable nor that it doesn't belong on the site. It was notable enough that I saw it featured in a review by The Critical Drinker on YouTube... And that when I went on to suggest it to friends, multiple others had already heard of, and seen it before I had. And though I'm on the opposite side as what was taken on the film I think it is something that nearly everyone I know could watch and find humor in. There is no reason that this page should not exist / should be deleted. There may be a problem with content on the page, but there should definitely be an article covering this film just as there would be for any other film. Case and point... After watching the film, I looked to Wikipedia to see if I could find how much was spent for the budget of this film, like I would for many others. Heimerslinger (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Lacking adequate sources or coverage does not mean that a film is not notable nor that it doesn't belong on the site." What? That is literally the notability guideline for our entire website! I like critical drinker, but he is not any indication of notability. Read the General Notability Guidline. Industrial Insect (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a new user I think I'm struggling to articulate my point with this a bit.

If I were to go search for Lady Ballers, I'll find articles discussing the film from various sources, of which, I can't really tell which ones would be appropriate for Wikipedia or not.

Ex. Out.com , newsweek.com, washingtontimes.com, them.us, freebeacon.com, imdb.com, a number of youtube videos / channels, MSN, Yahoo, Decider, The Daily Beast, Daily Express, etc.

To the average person, this is a film that does in fact exist and is being discussed among a fairly significant number of people.

The idea that, as some discussion above would imply, there should not be an article for it simply because no film critic has decided to cover it (or, rather, that a large number may be actively deciding not to) seems ridiculous to me.

I think that there is a very valid issue in that there may be issues with how much content may currently be written within the article with a reliable, verifiable source behind it.

But I think the article itself should exist. There are no doubt a number of people who will find this page significant and useful; and there are, at a minimum, a set of details that could be included on it, such as the plot, the cast, date of release, etc. Heimerslinger (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:ITSUSEFUL. Something being useful is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Reliable sources/Perennial sources should answer your question. YouTube videos are not (usually) considered reliable sources because they are not watched over by an editorial team, no matter how good their content may be. Newsweek post 2013 is not considered reliable. IMDB is not considered reliable due to being user generated content. Washington Times is considered generally reliable, but with a few instances of unreliable content. Yahoo is considered reliable. The Daily Beast is considered to be biased, however there is no general consensus. Daily express is a tabloid. Do not use it. I am unaware of the reliability of the other sources, however I appreciate you trying to help the discussion. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add, movie reviews are not the only thing that contributes to notability. Any reliable source that gives significant coverage to the topic is allowed. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would agree with the above commentator that a WP:SNOWCLOSE and WP:SK are in order. There is adequate RS coverage, cultural interest is apparent, just search on google LTL-GA (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear the intent of the deletion is to try to censor the movie. 73.133.252.186 (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not strawman the arguments of editors you disagree with. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want a strawman is? The idea of censorship is a legit point. 71.121.219.230 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I think the fact that no one is streaming it is more censoring than this vote. I wouldn't have known about it if it wasn't for this process. Oaktree b (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting to note is that the cast of the movie there are at least a dozen people who are notable enough here in this encyclopedia to have a biography. The just the cameo appearance of Ted Cruz has caused some stir on some of the news sites [27]. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is obviously notable, if not as a great film (doesn't seem to be), as an element in contemporary American politics. Even raising it for deletion feels a bit ridiculous, given that apparently it hadn't even premiered when the deletion was raised. While "this is obviously an attempt at censoring the film" may be a bit exaggerated (how would that even work?), the idea certainly smacks of something in that direction: WTF else would the reason be for such a rush? And "not notable" sure seems like a rather flimsy pretext: I only came here to look it up because it was talked about on the Internet (no, not by fans of Shapiro or the Daily Wire). As an example of how skewed the discussion has become by being so overly hasty: Someone above tried to use "But it has no reviews by professional critics on Rotten Tomatoes!" as proof of its non-notability. Yeah, well, that was then -- a couple of days ago, perhaps before the premiere. Now it has four. The mere existence of this deletion discussion does smack of precisely that "woke" crusading the Right loves to accuse "hipster SJW Wikipedians" of. Way to live up to their expectations. CRConrad (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's their issue to deal with, we aren't here to censor things. Oaktree b (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, exactly: We're here to write up objective knowledge on somewhat notable things. Which this is.

"Our" -- Wikipedia's -- issue is that of credibility. Looking as if we're "here to censor things" hurts that. CRConrad (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is clear that this AfD was premature. Since this film didn't come from a Hollywood studio, the mainstream coverage took a little longer to come out, but it appears to have been covered now. --rogerd (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a film with some cultural significance, at least significant enough to be on Wikipedia. A number of major news outlets have written articles on it, and a sitting US Senator is in it for Pete's sake! The arguments against it in this discussion mostly seem to center around it not having many major reviews yet, but many other movies on Wikipedia don't have the kind of reviews, coverage, or references that people proposing to delete this article say are needed (some examples: 12 Desperate Hours, House of Bones, How to Boil a Frog, trust me there are many, MANY, more). This is an alternative media film on an alternative media platform that just came out about a week ago. Of course not all mainstream outlets have covered it yet! But that doesn't make it insignificant, and more than a few mainstream outlets HAVE covered it at this point. It is MORE THAN A LITTLE suspicious that this PARTICULAR film article is being nominated for deletion while so many other film articles that are less significant and with less coverage are left up without challenge. I believe there is a distinct possibility that the nomination was made with another agenda in mind given that the film is more than a little controversial. It should not go unnoticed that the user who nominated this article is clearly someone who would likely not want such a film was made. I am not making a commentary on whether the movie or article are good, I doubt I would like the movie and the article clearly needs a better plot summary at least. I am simply saying that it is clear that this article should NOT be deleted and that if Wikipedia wishes to be seen as somewhat neutral and independent, agenda driven removal of articles, like I believe this nomination may be, should not be tolerated.

136.62.1.224 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/1/lady-ballers-transgender-activists-not-laughing-at/

The article states: "The conservative pundits at the Daily Wire predicted that their first feature-length comedy, “Lady Ballers,” would trigger the left, and they weren’t wrong. Transgender advocates sounded the alarm as the film’s release approached, accusing the movie of seeking to “mock trans women and girls who are fighting for the right to participate in sports as their gender,” as LGBTQ Nation put it.nThat, of course, is the point of “Lady Ballers,” the story of a has-been men’s basketball coach who convinces the players on his former high school championship team to identify as female so that they can dominate multiple women’s sports."

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/11/rightwingers-made-a-comedy-movie-attacking-trans-women-in-sports-it-looks-terrible/

The article states: "The far-right and viciously anti-trans Daily Wire has announced its first feature-length comedy film written to mock trans women and girls who are fighting for the right to participate in sports as their gender. A trailer for the film entitled Lady Ballers depicts a group of cisgender men deciding to pretend to be trans women and join a women’s basketball league as one team with the intent of dominating the sport."

https://www.out.com/film/lady-ballers-transphobic-comedy-film

The article states: "The premise of Lady Ballers seems to be that any out-of-shape 50-year-old white man is, by nature of being a man, a better athlete than any woman could ever hope to be. You see, women are just factually bad at sports, this movie states. It follows a high school basketball coach who gets his old team of guys who peaked in high school together to dominate a women’s basketball league and other women’s sports. It takes the false idea that anywhere at any time a cis man can claim he is a woman and enter any women’s sporting event. But the fun doesn’t stop there. It goes even further, saying that when cis men do that, they become unstoppable forces on the field."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lady Ballers to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons discussed above. TJD2 (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This in a US Spanish publication [28]. I was still hoping to see at least one major news source review this, or at least talk about it before changing my !vote... Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A fairly long review has appeared in the Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12826089/Lady-Ballers-Conservative-comedy-mocks-transgender-athletes-sparks-outrage-leftists-LGBTQ-activists-fans-say-answer-Hollywoods-woke-garbage.html PopePompus (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which we must not use. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
United Press International is covering it now: https://www.upi.com/Voices/2023/12/08/conservatives-anti-woke-Disney-alternative-Lady-Ballers/4291702043595/ PopePompus (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PinkNews, which is considered reliable on WP, published an article on Ted Cruz's appearance in the film as well as an article on perceived review bombing. 136.62.1.224 (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking Keep Wikipedia is not fucking censored. 71.121.219.230 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, calm down. No need to get so heated. This is a discussion, and you should assume good faith. As the reasons given for its deletion were a lack of coverage, I think you're reading into it too much.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (((ping)) me!) 22:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

If, AGF means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia - sure, I agree. This AfD proposal is not about hurting Wikipedia.

It's just about hurting the movie and DW and all the people involved in it, right?

There really is no legit reason to delete the article and everybody knows this. It is just not welcomed here. 2A00:23C7:7828:E001:8763:584A:F955:C2F9 (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's non-notable enough to remove either, but I highly doubt removing a Wikipedia article would "hurt" everyone involved. "Movie profits in the dumps, Woke-a-pedians to blame – 'We just couldn't stop those special snowflakes from besting us by writing 'Delete' while sat on the toilet on their phone', producer stated" isn't exactly a realistic headline, is it? The only thing that'll hurt the movie is if it's crap, and it seems pretty crap all by itself. No input from us required on that front. —Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (((ping)) me!) 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the reasons above. --69.135.3.210 (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because some Marxist Wiki editor is triggered by the film's existence, that is NOT a valid reason for deletion. And make no mistake, that's EXACTLY what this is, an attempt to remove any mention of the film from Woke-a-pedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F680:3450:395A:43BC:18C8:40F6 (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. While a deletion discussion may look like a voting process, it doesn't act like one – we don't total up votes at the end, and the justification and evidence of a vote matters more than the vote itself. A comment about Marxist Woke-a-pedians doesn't carry much weight.

—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (((ping)) me!) 21:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 16:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the film is currently the number one streaming/downloaded movie in the US right now. By the way, the nomination appears to be in bad faith as the nominator, according to their user page, is an activist for the ideology ridiculed and lampooned by this movie. 152.130.15.16 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Imagine my shock at that, I never would have guessed (sarcasm). I think an admin should close this poll as it's been an entire week and only two users have voted to delete. TJD2 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midway, Bossier Parish, Louisiana[edit]

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

Another "unincorporated community" lie that we are telling the world. It was a post office, and the only information recorded that I can find anywhere is that it was a post office, in a massive 1892 directory of post offices. It's not in the 1880 Lippincott's at all. It's not to be confused with the Midway geologic formation in Louisiana, which is actually per doi:10.3133/pp46 named after a place in Alabama. The "Bossier Parish" chapter in SPC's 1890 History of Louisiana gives 1 sentence to a list of "new post offices" since 1859. And that's it as far as the history books are concerned. This is a post office that even contemporary history ignored. It didn't ignore Thomas Lyles, its postmaster (ironically xyr post office getting scant mention in the biographical sketch, not even to say that it was a post office), but I don't have a second independent source for a biography so cannot refactor. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you, nom for your due diligence that the creator refused to exercise. Non-notable location. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took a deeper look at the newspaper sources I found when I deprodded the article, and while they do identify Midway as a placename, it's almost always in the content of Thomas Lyles and his business partner, a Mr. Hall. For example, this article says their store at Midway caught fire, and there are a few society pieces like this one. There are also articles like this one that refer to something happening "near Midway". My educated guess is that Midway was most likely just the name for the place where the store was at. If we had an article on Lyles, I'd propose redirecting there, but we don't so we should probably just delete this. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships. Daniel (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships[edit]

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

Non-notable figure skating competition. Most individual seasons of the Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships do not have a stand-alone article; not sure why this one does. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Taiwan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships: no independent notability for the 2016 season. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sujata Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. One of her YouTube videos has received over 12 million views, and certain sources are linked to it. Some of the sources are primary which mention her, but they're not credible enough for an article. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in RS that I can find. The name is too common to filter out ones that are singers. A large number of youtube views isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. no evidence she pass WP:SINGER. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 17:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and Subscribers does not make anyone notable. Macbeejack ☎ 06:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination, no coverage found in Reliable Sources, having millions of views in the video doesn’t establish notability. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This closure just concerns the main article as this bundled AFD nomination was not set up correctly. You can't just list articles in a nomination statement, they have to be tagged and the article creators notified. Please see WP:AFD for guidance on how to handle nominating multiple articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gandaki Province cricket team[edit]

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

PROD removed without addressing concerns. Fails WP:NCRIC: team does not hold List A or T20 status as it belongs to an associate member of the ICC. The same concern with the other provincial/franchise teams. These teams all fail wider WP:GNG, so I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and Nepal. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well i am curious now if these above mentioned pages got deleted then what about other franchises wiki pages like of USA Major cricket league, Canada Global T20, UAE ILT20 all the team are associated nations league and doesn’t hold any List A or T20s status like these should we start deleting them as well? My point is if Status is the main wiki criteria then other page should consider for deletation. Godknowme1 (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree. Though, some of those pass WP:GNG by having multiple sources and widespread coverage (as much as ideally I'd like teams which hold status only to have articles per WP:OFFCRIC). StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are all major teams of a major cricketing country (representing a seventh or eighth of the nation), that play at the national levels. There is absolutely no universe in which they would not meet GNG. Internet is not the totality of human knowledge, not yet. Even on the internet, I found enough to indicate GNG pass for teams like Lalitpur Patriots and Kathmandu Kings. There is not much on provincial cricket teams but there is again enough on provincial associations, such that those particular articles could be moved to respective association titles and with minor modifications retain information on their respective teams. And again, just on the internet, there is enough to support articles such as Lalitpur Patriots in 2017. Every games they have played in major tournaments and leagues have been covered by national newspapers. They are notable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep While it may be debatable that these articles have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, It's very difficult to consider the merits of each when bundled into one AfD. Some of them may have enough coverage to be kept, while others not/have a suitable WP:ATD. So procedural keep, with no issues of them being brought as separate AfDs. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, this does fall on the WP:TRAINWRECK side of things. NotAGenious (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Dragon Ball characters. There is consensus to merge, and this is the strongly-preferenced destination. Daniel (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Android 21[edit]

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

This one I've been wrestling with for awhile, because I'd *like* there to be more here, but ultimately there's no indication of any importance outside of this one game. Most of the quotes are small and minor, a lot of it focusing on her Majin Buu "turn people into treats" gimmick. Reference 6 in particular feels slightly misrepresented, while reference 7 seems to be its strongest one.

WP:BEFORE isn't helping here either, especially going through google news and excluding the usual valnet: there's no discussion or analysis. Scholar also had nothing. Trying a web crawl through sources excluded from Google News like Paste magazine also turned up nothing, and many of the articles are initial reactions to the trailers/game. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters As she has appeared in multiple Dragon Ball video games, that should meet the criteria for "Other recurring characters". Adding her with a condensed version of the current "Concept and design" section could work well. QuietCicada - Talk 14:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters. The reception as usual has some value, but it is cobbled from passing mentions or niche churnalism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep on this, based on these sources that are included in the article:
1. There is in-depth coverage of the subject's impact on a videogame and its competitive play scene here: [29], the majority of the article is dedicated to it.
2. There's in-depth coverage of the character's place in Dragon Ball canon here: [30], again the majority of the article is dedicated to the discussion. There's also a related piece from the same author [31]

—siro χ o 05:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo: main problem with the first one though is it's entirely focused on that one game and one version of the character, which they later nerfed. I'm always wary about game stuff because unless it's tied to reactions outside of the game (i.e. Symmetra, Rugal Bernstein) it's ultimately forgotten when the game EOS's eventually.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get ya. That's why I am "leaning" rather than firm. I think if it were ~10 years on in this exact state, I'd probably agree with the merge. But, I can imagine this one getting more coverage over that timeframe, and the way I like to write/improve articles, I prefer to start with an article like this. (I realize merging preserves history, so it's not the end of the article in that case, I'm not going to die on this hill if the consensus goes that way) —siro χ o 05:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo: The first source is not really about the character, just about her implementation in one particular game, that was criticized by players as being "too strong" for a while. This is trivial coverage. The second source(s) are better. But IMHO the second (third) of those two reuses parts of the first one, so it's hard to treat them as two spearate sources. I'd say we have one borderline good source which I think should be added to the article and preserved through merge if it happens. Is there anything else? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources in the reception and the coverage showing clear notability. An ATD to deletion would be draftifying and/or merging to the List of Dragon Ball characters. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters. I am rather unconvinced she passes WP:GNG based on the provided sources so far. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Red Ribbon Army (not the List of characters). Sources are needed for every entry in every Wikipedia article, so the sources in the current article are not enough argument to keep the article. The character itself is not notable enough in the outside world, with impact in popular culture and deep coverage by reliable secondary sources aside from some reviews by video game websites. We can trim the cruft and keep well-sourced information into an Android 21 section in the RRA article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Red Ribbon Army seems largely based on content farm sites to prove notability. That should also be merged into the character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Until/Unless the Red Ribbon Army article is merged into the List, it is the most accurate destination for this potential merger. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Insufficient sources to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she was just added to Dokkan and seems to be making yearly appearances in Dragon Ball media ever since debut. Jotamide (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jotamide: That's not really the argument. A lot of characters appear in various media but actual discussion is another matter. If that manifests later I'd be fine with saying spin it out but for the time being it's not there to satisfy notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have a division between those arguing Merge and those advocating Keep plus more than one Merge target suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Dragon Ball characters: For now, not notable enough for a standalone article. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LabX[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Obscure, no sources other than own website, fails WP:GNG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and United States of America. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't really find anything when I was trying to clean this up from the NPP dashboard. Material could be merged to National Academy of Sciences if ATD is suggested. – The Grid (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I read the one-paragraph article multiple times, and still have no idea what "LabX" is. Is it a museum? An education program? Either way, absence of independent coverage suggests lack of notability, and the name "LabX" is used by too many companies to make sourcing easy. Owen× ☎ 14:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games Europe[edit]

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

Fails the general and organization-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Europe, and Belgium. UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nomination certainly seems accurate to the article's current state - it appears to be entirely sourced to their own (1st party) website. It was a bit difficult to do source hunting though, as there are so many false positives with a generic name such as this. I did find this GamesIndustry.biz article that did a story on the subjects statistics. While not enough to keep the article, it's the only thing keeping me searching. If nothing else is found, I'm leaning delete. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I made some searches using the WikiProject Video games reliable sources search engine, the Wikipedia reference search engine, and even the WikiProject Video games situational sources search engine, and it gives me nothing on the subject that could be used to make a significant article. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't been able to find any additional sourcing. No prejudice towards recreation of someone can prove it meets the GNG, but conversely, there's very little to be lost from the current article either, which has little content in it, and even less encyclopedic content. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moustapha Kassem[edit]

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

There does not appear to be significant coverage of Kassem. The only sources I have been able to find (aside from CVs and profiles which are not independent of the subject) are a page listing patents he is involved in and a quote from him for a research grant. Uffda608 (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt, Denmark, Medicine, and Academics and educators. Uffda608 (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abatino Park[edit]

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

Notability tag was added 5 years ago with the reason: I don't speak Italian, but from what I can gather by using Google Translate, this is a "Garden" inside of a larger park, Piano dell'Abatino. There are a few websites with information about the larger park, but hardly anything about the "Giardino Faunistico". Perhaps the title should be changed to the more general topic so that some references can be added.' I couldn't find sources to dispute this. Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's this place, just so that we can identify what we are looking for. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Expo Line (SkyTrain)#Surrey–Langley extension. This closure only concerns the primary article. You can't just list articles in a nomination statement, they must be tagged as being part of this AFD deletion discussion and the article creators notified which did not occur. If you want an outcome for them, they must be renominated in a separate AFD and handled appropriately. Please review WP:AFD and follow the instructions for nominating multiple articles, precisely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Langley City Centre station[edit]

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

Major construction for these planned stations has not started yet (as per the source given at https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-langley-skytrain-expo-line-station-names) and will not for several months; this is classic WP:CRYSTAL—this and related stubs should be deleted until shovels are in the ground. It's also arguable that the unbuilt stations are notable in and of themselves at this point. Joeyconnick (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Joeyconnick (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related stubs:

—Joeyconnick (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 09:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This isn't a CRYSTALBALL issue at all - the station designs and construction timeline have been announced, so there's plenty of verifiable information. The real question is notability - is there sufficient coverage yet of each station individually? If not, they should redirect to Expo Line (SkyTrain)#Surrey–Langley extension. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I much prefer the idea of an article for a complete line or route, until such times as enough material has occurred about an individual station to merit an individual article. But I appreciate I'm going against the grain on this. The transport community seems to want individual articles even if all that can be said is that the station or stop belongs to route X and is found between the preceding station and the next one. My preference would be to amalgamate all this lot into one route article, but it ain't going to happen. Elemimele (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Expo Line – As these stations will begin construction soon and have finalized plans and names, it's very unlikely that there will be substantial changes that violate WP:CRYSTAL. That said, the current amount of available information can easily be covered in a table on the Expo Line article until more design details emerge. Sounder Bruce 05:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note only the first listed article has been tagged for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Expo Line (SkyTrain)#Surrey–Langley extension (which at present does not include even a plain list of stations on the extension) or a spinout article about the extension. There is no WP:CRYSTAL or other verifiability issue here. The issue is solely about the depth of available coverage, and while at present there isn't enough to sustain individual articles there absolutely is enough to justify inclusion on a broader article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to hope that this AfD request isn't classic WP:BADFAITH. Why is it that this was okay? I thought at the time that an infill station article should require "shovels in ground" but there was no opposition. Since the initial argument is not valid, is it possible that the reasoning could be something petty as being upset at "Surrey (somehow, for some reason) getting a multi-million dollar transit project they 1000% do not deserve"?^[2] —Northwest (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... that's a pretty bad-faith assumption right there. Capstan should have required shovels in the ground and if I didn't push for that, I apologize. But I didn't create that article. If I actively resisted its deletion (I don't recall doing so, but it's possible I've forgotten), then I would say my views have evolved and I would be happy to support the deletion of similar over-early articles in the future, no matter what transit project they're a part of.

These station articles are WP:CRYSTAL in that we don't know if these stations will be built and it would be reasonable to wait until the-shovels-in-the-ground point for the articles to be created/present in mainspace. There are more than 1 example of Canadian transit projects with "finalized plans and names" where they were cancelled even after the shovels point, the classic being the original Eglinton West line.

As to the clear accusation I am singling out these stations because I very much oppose this extension and the ridiculous politics that led to its current form, that's not the case. I actually would love to have all the Line 5 Eglinton stop articles deleted too but I haven't ever proposed that because they've been around for so long and railfan Wikipedia editors would no doubt strenuously object. In about 6 years of active editing here, I've learned to pick my battles and that's not a hill worth dying on for me. I generally do take a pretty conservative view of rushing to create articles; I bothered to propose these station articles for deletion because their creation was so new when I encountered them... and so clearly rushed based on one press cycle. As others have mentioned, it would suffice to list the station names in the Expo Line article until a) their major construction has begun and b) there are more sources (i.e. press coverage) to flesh out separate articles. Joeyconnick (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would like to agree that it seems like a bad faith deletion request! Deathying (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect articles to Expo Line (SkyTrain)#Surrey–Langley extension – Since the station names are (almost certainly) finalized, keeping the existing articles seems more appropriate than deleting them. However, I'm in favour of redirecting the listed articles to the Expo Line article which now has a summary table in the extension section, at least while the station designs are not finalized. TROPtastic (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://eurasian-defence.ru/?q=node/23837
^ Chan, Kenneth (June 17, 2022). "City of Surrey approves Fleetwood Plan of adding up to 100,000 more residents near future SkyTrain". Daily Hive. Retrieved December 6, 2023.

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 Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships[edit]

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

Non-notable figure skating competition. Most individual seasons of the Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships do not have a stand-alone article; not sure why this one does. Additionally, the results don’t add up – literally! – on the results tables. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Taiwan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships: no independent notability for the 2011 season. Owen× ☎ 14:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships[edit]

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

Non-notable figure skating competition with a whopping five skaters. Most individual seasons of the Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships do not have a stand-alone article; not sure why this one does. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Taiwan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese Taipei Figure Skating Championships: No independent notability for the 2010 season. Owen× ☎ 15:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ Materialscientist (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vimal Nair Suresh[edit]

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

NARTIST fail. Not a single non-primary source in sight. Previously deleted for A7. Fermiboson (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Malaysia. Fermiboson (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok, I'm confused now. The editor has authored a rejected AfC draft at Draft:Vimal Nair Suresh, but that seems to be a completely different person. What? Fermiboson (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as confused as above. The same sources are even in the draft, in a completely incoherent manner. In any case, Delete. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 06:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Microstub; no SIRS sources. This probably could've been PRODed. Note that this was discussed on the Discord server. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 06:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources that can be used to prove notability. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 800 Apartments[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Kentucky. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to work on the article this weekend to see if I can get it up to snuff. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 08:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on the article some today, and may have already satisfied WP:NBUILDING, but at any rate, I will add more tomorrow. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more work to do in the article, but in my estimation, the article already meets notability criteria, with multiple reliable sources, supporting the building's superlatives (particularly that 1) the building was tallest in Louisville, a top-50 US city, for a decade; 2) it won the first FHA Honor Award; 3) it was designed by a notable architect) and other aspects of the property. There's plenty of in-depth coverage of this building (at the very least by Kentucky's largest newspaper) over the years, which can be seen in newspapers.com searches. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to Stefan's excellent editing establishing notability. TH1980 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I can't disagree with Stefen's excellent points. Thanks for proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A2199 road[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per last AfD, this just doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn, the last AfD discussion was in January 2012 (almost 12 years ago). The article has improved massively since then if you compare revisions. Roads4117 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous AfD. No coverage in reliable sources, including its better known name of Croxted Road, neither of which appears to be a reliable redirect term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All this article needs is some more citations to reliable sources (like Google Maps) and some more information on it. This does definitely have potential. I would be open to the idea of moving it to a draft, and make changes over there. Roads4117 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth doesn't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back and WaddlesJP13, according to WP:GOOGLEMAPS Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View. According to this, you are allowed to use this to verify street names, coordinates etc. Roads4117 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roads4117: But does it verify notability? Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that it can be used for that, but consensus is also that it doesn't count towards notability. Lots of sources can be used which don't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Requires more participation. As an aside, "some more citations to reliable sources (like Google Maps)" - Google Maps is not considered generally reliable, per WP:GOOGLEMAPS.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strewth, we deleted Earlham Road in Norwich despite it's having a sunken bus, a cathedral, a university, a plethora of listed buildings and some historical documents. All we have for A2199 is a discussion of how we pass petrol stations rapidly followed by bridges, with the occasional roundabout for added excitement. If we have nothing to say about this road, then we shouldn't say it. We are simply not a bollard-by-bollard lamp-post detailed road description service. Elemimele (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele this page is absolutely no different to 99% of three-digit or four-digit articles on Wikipedia. If you delete this page, then you would have to delete the rest, otherwise it would be unfair this article gets special treatment compared to the rest, and also it would be a complete utter waste of time to delete hundreds and thousands of articles. This message also applies to Ritchie's comments above. Roads4117 (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true it wouldn't be a waste of time at all, improving wikipedia is not a waste of time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back Yes but it would take years to do it and there is it would be easier and quicker just to improve somebody's work rather than destroy it. Roads4117 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you are making is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Keeping this article because deleting other non notable articles would take time is not a policy reason to keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have no deadline. If its non-notable its not improvable to the point of being a high quality article by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for my !vote delete to be treated as a redirect as suggested by others. @Roads4117:, (1) I'm not convinced that a multitude of small articles is the right way to present information. It is often better to bring a lot of not-very-notable things together into one over-arching article, and (2) ultimately we're an encyclopaedia, not a database. We're here to take subjects on which multiple people have written, and summarise them for readers who want an overview. I'm afraid that for any road article, if a road hasn't been written-about in reasonable depth by several people, there is nothing to summarise. Information like that will no doubt find its corner of the internet, but this isn't it. Elemimele (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele No, that isn't so! Earlham Road was already kept twice. First time as a straight keep and recently as no consensus. I remember because I participated in the 2023 debate. In 2005 I was less active in AfDs. gidonb (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme: per result of previous AfD. Nothing has changed to make this road notable since then. Owen× ☎ 15:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Owen× and there is nothing notable with 99% of other three-digit and four-digit road articles. Like I said earlier in response to Elemimele's comments, why should this get special treatment compared to everything else. Roads4117 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is nothing notable with 99% of other three-digit and four-digit road articles they should be deleted or merged, why should they get special treatment compared to everything else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme Looking for any articles on the history of the road or any past or future road projects hasn't yielded anything other than routine coverage of run-of-the-mill events that happen anywhere. Such coverage is rare on relatively insignificant roads like this. As for using Google Maps as a source like Roads4117 mentioned, the issue isn't that there aren't any sources as much as there aren't any sources that prove notability. Google Maps wouldn't really prove anything other than that the road exists. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect, just not seeing the sort of coverage that indicates notability and there are no compelling arguments for notability presented otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 17:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bayfair Shopping Centre[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added a few references detailing it's redevelopment in the late 2010s, and am satisfied that it is significant in-depth coverage. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn’t just a collection of corner stores. It’s a massive mall, as big as they come in NZ. Schwede 66 17:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more sources exist. Can be improved. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: repeated coverage in the NZ Herald establishes notability. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:SPEEDYKEEP#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no new delete rationale in the deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tribute albums[edit]

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

To quote my PROD which was just removed: "Purpose redundant to Category:Tribute albums and its long list of subcats." The removing editor did make a fair point that there is date info on here which wouldn't be replicated by a category page, but for linked entries that info should already be in their respective articles anyway so it shouldn't be a huge loss. As for unlinked entries, surely redirecting those to an appropriate discography page/section would take care of that as well. And if there isn't an appropriate target for a handful, and they aren't notable enough for their own articles, then they probably aren't notable enough for placement on this list anyway. I think this whole page can be safely dumped without any huge loss. I wouldn't even consider the release dates to be vital enough to worry about losing, though maybe that's just me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTDUPE, list is informational, being broken down by tributee, and in large part navigational, satisfying the purpose criterion of NLIST. —siro χ o 03:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:LISTCRITERIA No sourcing whatsoever. No lead paragraph to explain the list. While this might be interesting to fans of that genre of music, it's just some random and unexplained list to everyone else. For all we know, this could just be a list somebody compiled from their personal collection. Or it could have been copied entirely from elsewhere. More is needed to explain this. — Maile (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think this is actually one of those cases where there's a reasonable navigational aid here, and it's pretty well-defined and not overly-broad or anything. I do worry about the lack of sourcing though, and that there seems to be a mismatch with articles we have and don't have. Ie, kill the entries that don't have articles, and shore up the completeness for those that do. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; the lead could use expansion, but the list is otherwise fine. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigational and information list. Dream Focus 05:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: This is clearly getting kept so why wait for the inevitable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Any editor should feel free to create a Redirect from either of these deleted page titles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Lewis (film director)[edit]

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

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

Minimally referenced WP:BLP of a filmmaker and a completely unreferenced article about his film, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for filmmakers. As always, neither filmmakers nor their films are automatically notable just because they exist -- the notability test hinges on evidence of significance, supported by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in real media.
The attempted notability claim here is that he won an award for best editing at a minor film festival -- but film festival awards clinch notability by themselves only if they come from major, internationally prominent film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, TIFF, Venice or Sundance whose awards get widely reported by the media as news, and not if they come from minor regional film festivals for which you have to rely on IMDB for sourcing. But IMDb (which is not a reliable or notability-making source) is the only source cited in either article at all, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown about either topic.
Nothing stated in either of these two articles is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help finding references instead of asking for deletion? Which are suitable reference websites for this? There are several homonyms, so looking for the proper references is difficult. Yann (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proper referencing is media coverage about him and his work in newspapers, magazines, books, film studies journals and other sources that represent a third party writing about him and his work in an analytical manner.

If you're the one who wants the article to exist, then you're the one with a responsibility to ensure that the proper references exist. You do not get to demand that other people try to find better referencing for you instead of listing it for discussion — because if better references don't exist, then what? So it's your job to ensure that you're using the proper calibre of referencing from the start, and if the proper calibre of referencing doesn't exist yet then you have to wait until it does before the article can be started. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Please do not lecture me. I know the rules very well. However I am not a specialist in cinema, I just found out that there was no article about this film maker, and seeing that he received several awards, I thought he is certainly notable enough. I am not from the US, so I don't know if these film festivals are notable and sufficient enough to establish notability. I suppose there were press reports when he received these awards, but I can't find them. There used to be a time when submitting an article was not so controversial. Yann (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added 3 references for Justin Lewis, and 2 for Collider, thanks to Mushy Yank. Yann (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the bundling of this film with its director. I think two Afds and not at the same time would have been fairer but that’s just me. The director has received some awards as editor on notable films and might meet WP:CREATIVE The film has been reviewed at least here) and here So Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awards are only notable enough to make their winners notable for winning them if the award itself is a notable one — that is, an award only counts as a notability claim if you can show that the media consider that award to be significant enough to report the award presentation as news, and does not count as a notability claim if media coverage about the award doesn't exist, and instead you have to "source" the award to IMDb or the award's own self-published website about itself. An award only counts as a notability claim if you can reference it to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage to establish that the award is independently considered significant, and we do not indiscriminately accept all film awards as equal notability makers. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, everyone knows that some awards are more important than other, I think, and I don't think I said the contrary (hence "might"). I never source with IMdB. Never. You're talking to the wrong person here. And, an award verified at the award entity website (Emmys, given festival, etc) is something ("self-published", no, the award cannot self-publish anything, can it? You probably mean "official"...) and counts for what it is. Coverage by other media echoing it is better, agreed, absolutely. Hence "might". But, to make things clear, I didn't !vote concerning Lewis, only his film. This kind of misunderstanding does not happen in individual Afds. Hence my disapproval of the bundling. Anyway, thank you for your message. I have no further comments. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMdB. If that is what you mean, fair: I did cite a website on this very page, above, in my comment, where the review is either copied from IMdB, as Metropolitan90 rightly indicates below, or written by a IMdB regular (not clear, but I had missed that, apologies). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His only work is Collider, the article of which is unsourced. The reviews given above are self-published and otherwise not from mainstream critics. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and perhaps written under his auspices is in my view a very unnecessary and baseless allegation given the page history and I would appreciate if you corrected it. For the record, Collider is the only film directed by him that has a WP page, yes, but it's as editor that he received awards. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG and UNRELIABLE. So many articles with Boloney sources. This is exactly why I am putting my foot down and getting involved

AaronVick (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. These articles don't have sufficient reliable, independent sources to establish that either the director or the film satisfies WP:GNG. The first review cited by Mushy Yank above is actually just a user review copied from IMDb. Of course, if the director becomes more prominent in the future, the article can be re-created as appropriate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Film only: because there’s one reliable review at least and to help the reader, as other films with that name exist, I’d like to suggest an ATD, by redirecting to List of science fiction films of the 2010s.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the reviews presented come from reliable sources. This https://www.the-other-view.com/collider.html is a blog. The other https://www.sci-fi-central.com/Database/SF/06/C0/index.php is imdb. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also from what i understand, ATD (Alternative to deletion) is meant to treat large informative articles in danger of deletion, not a stub. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure ATD has to do with the articles being a stub per se, rather with the fact that you can merge it or not. In the present case, you can, so it's rather in favour of a redirect, I should say: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." (WP:ATD) and "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." (WP:ATD) I had already seen your comment on the sources above but thank you all the same, As for the sci-fi central, I have already mentioned it quoting IMdB or being authored by an IMdB regular, after Metropolitan 90's note (see above, our comments). And The Other View seems like an expert blog to me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zombotron[edit]

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

Fails SIGCOV, dont see any reliable source being cited here. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG
1. SIGCOV in UK newspapers [32] (syndicated across several regional papers)
2. Common Sense Media has a staff review with SIGCOV [33]

—siro χ o 21:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides the sources stated above, it got a review in Rock Paper Shotgun. I probably wouldn't have !voted Keep with just the above sources, but this one puts it on solid ground. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The reception shows clear notability, which is strengthened by the sources the editors above have kindly provided. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep. Please reconsider whether a bundled nomination is appropriate. It's unrealistic to expect participating editors to be able to thoughtfully review this many (48!) articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Vargas[edit]

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

User Kewf1988 created a bunch of Wikipedia pages for non-notable local officials and news anchors over a decade ago. None of these people have gotten much national news coverage or done anything worthy of a Wikipedia page. Doubt they satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. As you can tell by this person's talk page, a lot of pages they created have already been deleted. Full list of pages nominated:

BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Journalism, Radio, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Sparse mentions in recent news indeed. Found a couple of hits here and here where he's supposed to one of the Manuel Torres awardee, but may not be enough to establish GNG.--Whosethose (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. While the nomination is well-intentioned, it's too hard to evaluate so many different subjects at one time, in one discussion. Recommend withdrawing and nominating separately, a couple each day. —siro χ o 03:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep While the vast majority of these articles should be deleted they vary in terms of office held, length of article, and referencing. These need to be nominated individually. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep I agree that some of the broadcast journalists are probably non-notable, though I have found enough material to rewrite Lyn Vaughn. But they can't be handled here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: per everyone else. Having the same original creator notwithstanding, a bundled nomination of this size that features two different types of people (politicans and broadcast journalists) simply doesn't appear to be the type of clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy bundled AfDs are supposed to be. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep or Keep. The sources show notability in my opinion, but it is hard to judge them as a whole as they are very different and there are so many of them. Improving them one by one would be a better course of action.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. The subject is notable just more work needs to be done on the article to add more sources. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, as this is just too many people to evaluate in one shot. It might, further, be possible that some of these are salvageable with better sourcing while others aren't — which is why only topics that are directly related to each other (such as a filmmaker and his film, a musician and her album, a writer and their book, etc.) should normally be bundled together for one discussion. No prejudice against individual renominations, but batching this many unrelated topics together like this is a recipe for a trainwreck. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per above. This is starting to look WP:SNOW to me. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to University of New South Wales#Accommodation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UNSW Residential Communities[edit]

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

This was PRODed by another editor, however that was removed. This is a duplication of information from other articles being the residential colleges that are discussed and linked to in this article. No independent notability for this article. Suggest redirect to University of New South Wales#Accommodation. TarnishedPath^talk 01:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 01:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of New South Wales#Accommodation. There is sourced information in the article and the destination has room for expansion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnail gallery post[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I could not find any reliable sourcing for this topic on Google. It seems to be a case of Recentism, have been written in the 00s about a format of Porn website that existed back then, but which ultimately does not achieve the notability required to be included on here. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find RS that discuss types of porn websites, let alone this kind. I don't expect this topic to have much mainstream coverage. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish the project could run from our past, but as long as embarrassments written by circa 2004 admins like this exist in deep and unsourced detail, I'm afraid we can't. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turks in Moldova[edit]

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

Marked for notability concerns 13 years ago. Such a tiny population that doesn't get third party coverage. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Moldova, and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article shows they are notable Chidgk1 (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, Refs found are all stats, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 13:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Era Istrefi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nuk E Di[edit]

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

Song does not merit a standalone article as per WP:NMG. Iaof2017 (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Kosovo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Era Istrefi. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 23:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Era Istrefi. Fails GNG. BEFORE found promo and database nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 14:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Era Istrefi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psikopatja Jote[edit]

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

Song does not merit a standalone article as per WP:NMG. Iaof2017 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Kosovo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Era Istrefi.. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 23:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Era Istrefi. Fails GNG, nothing found with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 14:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Capital T. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syt e tu[edit]

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

Song does not merit a standalone article as per WP:NMG. Iaof2017 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Kosovo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capital T. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 23:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capital T. Fails GNG, nothing found with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 14:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Capital T. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yalla (Capital T song)[edit]

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

Song does not merit a standalone article as per WP:NMG. Iaof2017 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Germany, Kosovo, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capital T. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 23:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capital T. Darling per nom. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It states here that the song peaked at number 3, however there's no SiGCOV nor anything in RS, therefore I'm leaning towards weak redirect. Please ping me if sources are presented. ihateneo (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution Ihateneo. It's worth noting that "Yalla" did not entered the charts in Germany, instead it was an earlier collab by the artists called "Wann Dann". Cheers. Iaof2017 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iaof2017, i seriously don't know how I missed that maybe it's because it is cited in the article. ihateneo (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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