< February 14	February 16 >

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

The result was redirect to State funeral. No need to drag this out, the only disagreement here being on the most appropriate redirect target. I selected State funeral, but if another target is judged more appropriate, that can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death and state funeral[edit]

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

I was mistaken in my AFC acceptance. Redirect to List of people who have received a state funeral. This is not a true disambiguation page. It's really an incomplete list and a POV fork. Please accept my apologies. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people who have received a state funeral: Per nom. It is just a list. – robertsky (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to State funeral instead the one above. See BD2412's comment. – robertsky (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:PTM and as a plausible search term. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. --Bduke (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom Kathlene Smoot (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to State funeral. Nothing about the title suggests to me that a reader would expect to be taken to a list of instances, rather than an article on the topic. BD2412 T 22:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 Your suggestion of redirect target is spot on. I was standing too close, and took my cue from the contents, not from the title. I should not alter my rationale since folk have opined based upon it, but I do alter my opinion to be congruent with yours and find that you have the correct redirect target. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Bduke, @Kathlene Smoot, @LaundryPizza03, @Robertsky in case you each wish to alter the redirect target to the one suggested by BD2412. I believe my original target was in error, for which I apologise. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with the update. :) – robertsky (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to State funeral per BD2412; this seems to be the best target. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to State funeral per BD2412, and subsequent comments by the nominator and others. Sal2100 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this would be helpful as a redirect. It's not a natural search term; the only reason someone would type it in the search box is them having already seen a death and state funeral of X article on Wikipedia and looking for other similar articles, in which case they would be best served by the search suggestions and results. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to State funeral. I think the best course of action is to redirect to a more developed article, and State funeral seems to be the appropriate target. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are Greek sources, but no one here is able to evaluate them. If someone is able to read them, they can either add the sources to the article or renominate it for deletion if they conclude that WP:SIGCOV is not met. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for the Study of Traditional Pottery[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 14 years. I tried searching with its 3 names and only got 1 gnews hit for the first name. Unless someone can find coverage in Greek, I'd reconsider. LibStar (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that notability is questionable to begin with, so without solid sources for so long I don't see much of a reason to keep. Ppt91 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline G12 with copyvio present since 2009. If you stub it back to then, you're left with an A7, so not sure the best course of action here. Star Mississippi 23:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable due to lack of sources available, and I agree with the issues raised by SM also. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I used way back machine on the official website to find the name in Greek: "Κέντρο Μελέτης Νεώτερης Κεραμεικής". A search of that in Google books identified many sources, but I can't use google translate on them. I added what I could find, two passing mentioned and a very long piece written in collaboration with the subject. My perception is that it is notable, just not written about much in English, we really need someone who can read Greek to look at Google books. I favour not deleting, but I cannot say it meets WP:GNG, as I do not know. CT55555(talk) 05:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by CT55555, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I thought it was for traditional poetry, per Roseanne Roseannadanna. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 sources have been provided. Not sure if that's WP:HEY. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this should not be deleted considering its historical significance. There are high chances of availability of offline sources.Thilsebatti (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning weak keep, for the exact reasons stated by @Thilsebatti and having seen books, but without the language skills to translate them. The existence of this article is a net positive to the encyclopaedia, despite significant coverage being unclear. CT55555(talk) 23:32, 22 February 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!} 23:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Rothstein[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Unreferenced. Reads like a resume. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has 4,000 cites. I don't know how much is the average for this field, but that seems like a substantial number for the purposes of WP:NPROF. Curbon7 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than 4000 citations, eight publications with more than 100 cites (and one of them above 1600). Seems enough to claim a relevant influence on his field. Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I sent an email to the oversight team just asking for the photograph to be deleted on 15.2.23 on the grounds that it was an intrusive and professionally damaging image of me. I am ok with the text more or less as it stands. 86.171.114.69 (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PROF-C1 given citation count. --Mvqr (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bevilacqua[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG Simione001 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage in The Age and the Narracan Shire Advocate should be enough to meet GNG here. – Teratix ₵ 01:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it doesn't meet GNG in my opinion. This is just a routine article in a regional newspaper about him signing on to play for country Victoria side Moe. Simione001 (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The concept of "routine coverage" is meant to disallow brief announcements like local wedding notices and sports scores from contributing to notability, not disallow articles merely because they appear in a regional newspaper. If the extent of the article was "Carlton-listed Peter Bevilacqua transfers from Traralgon to Moe", then I'd agree it wouldn't count. But the article is more extensive, going into detail about how negotiations unfolded, Bevilacqua's ability and approach to negotiation, and the various clubs' reactions.
  
  Coupled with the contemporary coverage in The Age and Bevilacqua's status as the league's only Italian-born player, this is plainly a GNG pass. – Teratix ₵ 04:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Teratix. Besides [1] and the sources Teratix listed above, there is definelty offline coverage of him. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Teratix. Deus et lex (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources on article which show notability. Giant Snowman 10:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, proper BEFORE not done.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject with more than enough coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. Article is well sourced. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:25, 22 February 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 21:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dauntae Mariner[edit]

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

Other than being the nephew of Tim Cahill this guy is not notable. Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is supported by numerous reliable independent sources, so easily passes GNG.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't say multiple. Maybe one. Simione001 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- sources include significant coverage from national newspapers, local new sources, and international websites. --Gri3720 (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per IdiotSavant and Gri3720. Besides the many already sources on the page, I also found 16. Clearly significant figure in Samoan and Australian lower league football and young player with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given above. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources (Samoan Observer, 442) which show notability. Giant Snowman 10:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:49, 21 February 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 21:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Horsfall[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am leaning towards keeping the article based on [2], Southampton wouldn't gave a testimonial match to a nobody, they gave him one on 16 May 1982. [3], [4] that is interesting, as that suggests there maybe more media and news on this person from the South coast outfit. Mentioned in The Times. Mention in the Southampton Daily Echo. That's just a start of what I have uncovered and I bet there is more. Govvy (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I cant read the times article due to paywall so im not sure how much of a mention he gets but the first link is a player profile on the clubs website and as such is not an independent source. The second link is to a match day program cover... not sure how that satisfies WP:GNG and the other link is a brief twitter post confirming the testimonial match you are refering to which also doesn't really satisfy WP:GNG either in my opinion. Simione001 (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Umm, the saintsplayers.co.uk website (the first link) is independent of the football club, it's actually run by an author/historian who has written books in association for the club and players. He describes the websites as a wiki, but because of its oversight its deemed reliable. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. But it's close, I think BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike today, when even a 17-year old football "starlet" gets plenty of press coverage, enabling them to pass WP:GNG, players in the 1940s rarely got such coverage apart from routine match reports. Does that make them all a potential subject for deletion? The article on saintsplayers.co.uk is a copy of the entry for Horsfall in the meticulously researched "All The Saints" published by Hagiology in 2013. If this article is deleted, then Wikipedia will end up having nothing about football players before the internet era, but will happily have articles about youngsters who have not achieved anything of lasting merit. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Govvy and Daemonickangaroo2018. There is definitely offline coverage of him, such as here. Played for Southampton, a team currently in the English Premier League. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons and sources above which show notability, although I note that the current PL status of the club is irrelevant. Giant Snowman 10:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:23, 20 February 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 21:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It Came from the Basement![edit]

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

Article about a television series not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. To be fair, this article was first created at a time when Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for TV shows conferred an automatic presumption of notability on any TV show that could be properly verified to exist -- but the criteria have since been tightened up to require third-party coverage about the show in sources independent of itself as independent verification of its significance. This, however, doesn't have that and never did, as it was just an interstitial feature that aired in commercial breaks between programs, and thus never received any non-trivial coverage in its own right. Even on a WP:BEFORE search of ProQuest, I just get one glancing namecheck of its existence in local human interest coverage of a collector geek who appeared on it once -- and otherwise I just get accidental text matches on house fires starting in basements, which obviously don't help at all. So this was a good faith creation by the inclusion standards of 2006, but it just doesn't have the coverage needed to pass the stricter inclusion standards of 2023. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatantly fails both WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG. It appears to have existed at some point, but that's about all that can be said about it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: the article currently fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:45, 21 February 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 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazal Saremi[edit]

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

Moved from draft without submitting, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. no significant coverage in the sources, just passing mentions and listings. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. Only mentioned in passing in lists etc but not mentioned in her own right. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: there is not enough significant coverage to justify the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.--Bexaendos (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Roxy the dog 17:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously failing notability. Silikonz💬 01:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:43, 21 February 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. Consensus (albeit slim) is that it's too soon, but the draft window will bring is closer to the season start date and in that status, folks can update it and move when sourcing/info is sufficient. Star Mississippi 03:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 S.S.C. Napoli season[edit]

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

Article lacks notability. No source specifically mentions Napoli next season. No announced matches or deals concluded. It's too early to write an article before some things become clear. Sakiv (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: They have confirmed a spot in the next season of the Serie A. Why do we need to wait until a transfer happens or a match is announced for us to create the article? The fact that they have a 2023-24 season and will participate in said competitions is undeniable. Unless you want me to provide a source that they qualified? Mwiqdoh (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draft Should probably have been left in draft space for a bit, but article is needed. Pointless in deletion and pointless AfD. Govvy (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you had followed a little, you would have seen that I sent it to draftspace first but then they objected. Had no option after that. Sakiv (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy, obviously WP:TOOSOON for such a page, we are in the middle of the 2022–23 season, there is nothing certain about the next season (except saying they will be in Serie A, which is quite pointless). The page is basically empty of contents (the only meaningful content is the list of players, who actually are the 2022–23 season players). Also no secondary sources exist about the Napoli next season except rumors and speculation articles. Cavarrone 07:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cavarrone: Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered. What part of this does the article not follow? The article has independent secondary reliable sources (Football Italia and Siempre Milan). Mwiqdoh (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just added a source specifically about the 2023/24 season of Napoli. Mwiqdoh (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of them is significant coverage about the 2023–24 S.S.C. Napoli season. "Napoli" is not even mentioned in the two legitimate articles, even if a trivial mention would not change things too much, while this is a joke, it not even an article (it is a database entry) and claiming this is the 2023–24 list of players is pure crystal ball (these are the 2022–23 season players, period). So "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered" applies. Cavarrone 09:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavarrone: Players are not going to switch clubs because the transfer window is closed, they can't switch clubs. There is not going to be a change in the squad except those people on loan. Mwiqdoh (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The 2023-24 season will start on 20 August, there will be a 2 month market window by then. Frankly, based on your replies here, I wonder if you have any basic competence to edit such articles. Cavarrone 09:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavarrone: No it does not start on 20 August that's absolutely ridiculous! Look at any 2022–23 season article they include transfers on June and July of 2022 + almost every team plays pre-season matches in July! So are you telling me those July pre-season matches go in the previous article? Mwiqdoh (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have any basic competence to edit such articles Looking at your contribution history, it looks like you have never touched a club season article. Mwiqdoh (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, the pre-season (there is a "pre" suffix meaning "before" for a reason, I bet) matches in July! BTW "Look at any 2022–23 season article they include transfers on June and July of 2022", enough said about the claim that the transfer window is closed and this one will be the 2023-24 players list. And when I talk about competence, I talk about competence about recognizing significant coverage, recognizing reliable sources, understanding WP:NOT and so on. Also please read WP:BLUDGEON. Cavarrone 09:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Once more information is available specifically about the upcoming season, the article can likely be recreated in April.--Sakiv (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Sakiv: Your nomination is classed as a delete vote, you can't vote delete again. Govvy (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: What? Who said that? Do not change my comment, the nomination for deletion is not automatically considered a vote.--Sakiv (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the nomination is already considered a delete vote unless you state an alternative in the nomination. You are free to expand your rationale with further comments in the discussion but you are not able to "vote" again and can be seen as disruptive to the process. I have struck the delete comment that rest of the statement is fine. Please read through WP:AFDFORMAT in the when participating section point 5 which states '"Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this."' McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy and McMatter are correct. As the nominator, it is automatically assumed that you are !voting to Delete the article. Posting another !vote is therefore inappropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My God, yes, what I did was wrong, but what the editor above did by trying to win over another editor who has full freedom to express his opinion is acceptable. Sakiv (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No point of deleting as the article is clearly a notable subject and the 2023/24 season is only a few months from now. No longer a CRYSTALBALL as they have confirmed a position in Serie A and their participation in 2023/24 is confirmed. Mwiqdoh (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace as WP:TOOSOON and the article is not good enough for mainspace. We already have way too many empty abandoned season articles for 2022-23 seasons (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Empty club season articles, we don't need to start doing the same for 2023-24 seasons. Wait until there is significant news coverage of this season e.g. once the 2022-23 season has ended, and there's some actual fixtures, transfers to report. Right now, we have a 2022-23 current squad list, and that's it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's next season. I'm fine with having the shell already there. It's not like we're talking about the 2037-2038 season or something; having shell articles for the upcoming season seems perfectly reasonable and I have no qualms with this; its fully expected that a top-flight Serie-A team will pass GNG easily. It's not worth deleting an article which in a few months will just get recreated. --Jayron 32 16:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (in mainspace) Its a season that starts in less than six months and the club has already secured a place in top flight. Per WP:CRYSTAL, scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place, which is certainly the case here. Frank Anchor 16:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. Everything but the fact that they'll play next season is speculation (and even that may depend on e.g. not going bankrupt or some scandal emerging). The name of the coach, players, ... should all be removed as uncertain. This would leave us with an empty shell. Rushing to create these articles the day it is certain that the team will not be relegated should be strongly discouraged. Fram (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify wait until the current season matches have finished. Giant Snowman 10:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or userfy look like the best options to me. I also think it was a bit too soon to create this page, but at least the basic elements are okay, so we could just keep it under cover until June or July (which isn't too far away), when the first details about the squad and transfers will be available. Oltrepier (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Fram. Not much sense deleting it now since it is almost certain to happen, but not needed in mainspace just yet. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:06, 20 February 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 20:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Women's World Cup goalscorers[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason for PROD: "For the same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UEFA European Championship goalscorers. WP:NOTSTATS". Natg 19 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Lists. Natg 19 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm struggling to see how this is any different to the other AfDs linked by the nominator. The list at FIFA Women's World Cup#Records and statistics is sufficient. We don't need an exhaustive list of every single person that has scored a goal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as the previous AFDs apply here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per recent AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too detailed stats. The highlights can go under FIFA Women's World Cup. Could be redirected to said article per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list is a trivia. NavjotSR (talk) 16:11, 21 February 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 20:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Picmonic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no indication this company is notable. Of the refs, the Techco one has a couple of paragraphs within a list of companies and USA today makes a passing mention so slight it carries no significance. Nothing significant was found by searching either, apart from reports of its acquisition (also the third ref), and that was by a company that itself has yet to be shown to be notable. The article itself does not really have a lot to say about the company either - in a little over five years it has hardly expanded beyond just a stub. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, Websites, and Arizona. AllyD (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Found some reviews, but those were in blogs, so don't meet the reliability requirement for sources. Found some announcements of partnerships, but don't meet the independence and in-depth requirements. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: the article fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper above fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:39, 21 February 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 20:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League players with multiple 1,000-yard receiving seasons[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. I tried to salvage this list article last week but the only source available is StatMuse. StatMuse is an AI tool which allows you to use "conversational search" to find statistics that match a question you enter (some have suggested this site functions like a chatbot). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of players as they are rarely tracked by number of 1,000-yard seasons. No significant coverage of these players as a group. Frank Anchor 20:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I oppose merging due to the indiscriminate and trivial nature of this list. Frank Anchor 03:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’ Keep ‘’’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.61.59 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally it's considered best practice to leave a brief explanation as to why you are voting the way that you are. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of National Football League career receiving yards leaders. Every player in both lists has more than 10,000 receiving yards, so no players will be lost. The columns of information in this table that are not already in the destination article can be transferred to the destination article. V C 00:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. I'm also opposed to merging. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am coming to the same conlcusion but for completely different reasons. The list is very WP:DISCRIMINATE and has very specific requirements for inclusion. However, it seems to fail WP:LISTN and seems to be simply a copy of the data provided here at another website--which should be enough to clear the WP:OR standards. Information may be more suitable for an online sports almanac and I suggest that enthusiastic editors try another wiki. So: same conclusion, different reasons.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every accomplishment should become a list. gidonb (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the article List of National Football League career receiving yards leaders is fine as it is and doesn't need bloating with anything from this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 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 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Cyber Range[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It sounds like company guff, although I haven't been able to find a copyvio. No refs on the page and there are few refs that I can find, none which seem good enough to meet the GNG. WP:NOTADVERT JMWt (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Michigan. JMWt (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add, there was a first AfD discussion in 2014, it seems the issues date back to before then. I think enough time has elapsed for improvement. JMWt (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article with no in-line source citations. I can only find something from the State of Michigan and what looks like a trade publication talking about this Range (the article doesn't make it clear either what this is). Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient foundation references (none). Rhadow (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:29, 16 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Bridge (film)[edit]

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

Article about an apparently never-completed film, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough coverage to pass WP:NFILM in the absence of ever having been finished or released. As always, Wikipedia does not want to indiscriminately maintain an article about every single film that enters the production pipeline without regard to whether it ever comes out the other end as a finished film or not -- but according to the article, funders backed out in 2017 and alternative new funders were sought out, and this has had an "update" tag on it since 2019 without ever being updated with any new information to indicate that it was ever resurrected.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if it ever actually does get completed, but the amount of production coverage shown here is nowhere near sufficient to earn a never-released film any sort of permanent "notable as a failed production" pass. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any significant coverage or recent coverage at all. Kind of hard to search for because the movie is named after a historical location but I don't think its out there... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above: I was unable to find enough coverage for it to pass WP:NFILM. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above, though I have no objection to a recreation if the film is ever finished and released. TH1980 (talk) 03:33, 19 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reina King[edit]

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

Other than having a famous sister, there isn't really anything notable about her. Only 6 acting credits according to IMDB, with the most recent one being a short film nearly 25 years ago. As far as producing, she only has 2 projects that have been released, neither of which are notable. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant third-party sources for her can be established. An unreferenced WP:BLP probably for that reason. Mike Allen

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!} 04:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jagaddhatri (TV series)[edit]

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

Pay-TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks nonWP:ROUTINE coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 25 January 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, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [5], [6], [7], [8]

These sources on this page have enough coverage. 103.102.138.10 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources provided by the IP seem sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 16:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above: the sources provided by the IP suggest that the article passes WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:27, 16 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk and Skull[edit]

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

I've PRODed this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded now by User:Mast303 with edit summary "this article is fairly long". To that, I'll reply that WP:ITSLONG is not a particularly strong argument, we will need better then this. Otherwise, the best I can recommend is to redirect this to the List of Power Rangers characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is fairly long. Also, it has several references and sufficient explanation. Mast303 (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. Gag characters, but very long-running gag characters. I expect that additional sources can be found. BD2412 T 19:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.★Trekker (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers characters. I see nothing in the article or in the provided sources indicating a pass of WP:GNG, although their existence can certainly be cited as part of a larger list. Previous !votes are along the lines of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD arguments aren't 'votes' and I did provide sources, not just argue that they must exist.★Trekker (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Your sources seem to be without regard to reliability or significant coverage, or whether the article is clickbait. Simply scraping all mentions from the web is not an adequate demonstration. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  !vote also stands for non votes. The exclamation is there on purpose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StarTrekker; there are enough sources for the article to pass WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is suffering from a bad case of all-plot-summary, but they are incredibly long-running characters and the sourcing demonstrates that they are considered popular and iconic. By the way I’m about as neutral as it’s possible to be because I know next to nothing whatsoever about power rangers. Dronebogus (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With two "keep" !votes and 1 "delete" !vote (the nom), I am closing this as "no consensus". Given the low participation (even after 3 relists) no prejudice to a re-nomination in 1 or 2 months. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Left Front candidates in the 2019 Indian general election[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Fails WP:Notability and seems to be WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Not notable enough to be a separate article. Left Democratic Front based on Kerala won 1 seat and the content is already covered in 2019 Indian general election in Kerala. Similarly, 4 other left-wing candidates won in Tamil Nadu under DMK alliance, which is already covered in separate article. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This article consists of left front candidates. This article is not WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Although the page is for candidate list only, the result (won/lost) is written. XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not redundant. Contains information on won/lost and more. Many of these candidates are notable. gidonb (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While noting that there's no policy for the speedy keep, which is moot anyway since the discussion had been running for approximately two weeks at that point, there is no consensus here and no indication a fourth relist will bring upon any. If further discussion is needed, perhaps the Talk page or a relevant project might find more eyes. Star Mississippi 03:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kite Museum (Malacca)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Reference 1 is its own website, reference 3 is a 1 line mention, reference 4 is a tourist guide listing and reference 5 is a directory listing. Previous AfD is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kite Museum. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Malaysia. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is third nomination for deletion of this article, under slight variations in name. Deletion nominator mentioned first (2015) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kite Museum but not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kite Museum (Melaka) of 2020. All three nominations by same editor. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is one of three similar articles on several museums located in one former municipal building, see also People's Museum and Beauty Museum. There could be a case for consolidating these in one article (which I notice was suggested by Andrew Davidson in the 2015 AfD on the Kite Museum, as well as being suggested by Kraxler on Talk:Beauty Museum). AllyD (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or "Speedy Keep", for all the reasons expressed in latest AFD which was opened by the same deletion nominator, which they may have forgotten (although it was listed on article Talk page). wp:ITSAMUSEUM is an excellent relevant essay. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"an excellent essay" written by yourself... LibStar (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't like to do this, and I very rarely do so, but deploying WP:IAR here (which is what WP:ITSAMUSEUM also does, I think) and say that museums are exactly the sort of content that almost always is a net major positive to an encyclopaedia, plus the difficulty in searching Malay sources. The several brief mentions in books is a bit like WP:BASIC for biographies, but applies to museums. My sources:

Frommer's Singapore & Malaysia. (1998). United States: Macmillan.
The Guide to Melaka. (2004). Malaysia: Melaka State Government & Leisure Guide Pub.
Starostinetskaya, A., Pikovsky, F. (2019). Off Track Planet's Southeast Asia Travel Guide for the Young, Sexy, and Broke. United States: Running Press.

CT55555(talk) 16:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources just listings in travel guides rather than indepth coverage? LibStar (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are nothing more than "brief mentions". CT55555(talk) 18:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with People's Museum. The content should probably be documented on Wikipedia somewhere, but the sourcing doesn't seem like enough to have an independent article at this time. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has a separate article, and keeping and developing seems fine. It would be wonderful to expand Wikipedia's coverage of museums in Malaysia, but merging two museums out of 3 which have a presence in one building, and with at least one of these having substantial presence elsewhere, does not appear to make sense to me. People's Museum is complicated; its relationship to the Beauty Museum and to the Kite Museum (Malacca) is unclear (the creator of one or all 3 articles commented in the 2015 AFDs why they decided to keep them separate, though). Also not there is an adjacent park Taman Bunga Merdeka (formerly Coronation Park) which includes railway car(s) and planes; the "transportation section" of the park is part of the People's Museum. In 2015 in conclusion of three AFDs the current deletion nominator was strongly recommended to open a wp:MERGE discussion but did not. All three AFDs that had been opened by this editor then were closed "Keep". Subsequent AFDs opened by deletion nominator in 2020 include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kite Museum (Melaka), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petaling Jaya Museum, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melaka Transportation Museum, which were all closed "Keep". The latter discussion uncovered connection of People's Museum to the planes and trains. Note also Ayer Keroh article includes a table of museums in part of Malacca. It would be good to ~~create~~ expand treatment of museums in List of museums in Malacca and List of museums in Malaysia by making tables and including photos and descriptions. However, having a list-article row does not preclude having separate articles where there's more information. And currently there's more information in the separate article than is included in the list-articles' rows for this museum. "Keep" is how I !voted above, and what I recommend, unless and until there is someone seriously developing sensible treatments. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 11:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16). Given the history, I am deleting this before redirecting and will protect the redirect. Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MC Stan[edit]

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

repeatedly created and rejected in draft space then in mainspace following the win on reality competition "people stuck in a house" Bigg Boss 16. No other notability besides that win, so does not meet WP:ENT (requires multiple lead roles in shows/films) or WP:MUSICBIO (notable albums and songs). Recommend redirect to Bigg Boss 16. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, and India. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He does seem to be an established rapper. Despite WP:Bignumber he has 3,834,626 monthly listeners on Spotify. As far as I could tell the two albums are streaming only, not CD or vinyl, and self-released rather than on a major label. There's coverage in Rolling Stone India and GQ, but it is of questionable independence given the rapper's contribution to those pieces. I think this may be a borderline case. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I'm usually sceptical of articles about reality TV stars, but there does seem to be a decent amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) which would be sufficient for WP:GNG. WJ94 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Having looked back at WP:NMUSIC, and specifically WP:REALITYSINGER, I'm not seeing any coverage that indicates notability outside the show. WJ94 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Leaning towards redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16) based on them not appearing to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Seems to be a lack of WP:SIGCOV outside of their participation on the show. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested seems ok. The person doesn't seem notable outside of the show itself. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note For context, I blocked the article's original author Misterrrrr earlier today. They're the sock of a blocked user, and part of a UPE ring. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, thanks, if this results in redirect, recommend salting the mainspace one. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16): and salt as sock puppet created UPE. Failed WP:NMUSIC 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16), and as already been suggested, salt. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt per the above editors. BLP subject does not appear to meet WP:REALITYSINGER just yet and article has been recreateed repeatedly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another NN performing artist, probably UPE article creation. UtherSRG (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16): Per my original comment above. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV show season per above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above. There's not much more to say than what's already been said here. Also protect the redirect for a while. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this BBC piece, which is significant coverage and mainly talks about his life before entering the Big Boss house. Billboard indicates he has had a song in the charts for five weeks which would seem to meet criteria #2 of WP:NMUSIC, so I don't think this is as cut-and-dried as it might first seem. 07:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curb Safe Charmer (talk • contribs) 07:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard India Songs isn't listed in WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS or Billboard charts, so this is a very recent listing (chart started in 2022). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC piece fits the WP:BLP1E for his win on the show as well as the other 10+ mainstream news articles. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are three tests for WP:BLP1E to apply -
do RSes cover the person only in the context of a single event? No, there are reliable sources covering his career as a rapper before his involvement in BB.

Is he likely to remain a low-profile individual? I don't have a crystal ball but I would say incredibly unlikely. It is likely to boost his career as a rapper as no doubt reflected in his Spotify following and current Billboard chart listing for his latest song.

Is the event significant, and was the individual's role substantial and well documented? Clearly so.
None of the three tests apply, so BLP1E doesn't apply here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:53, 20 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Zhejiang (2020)[edit]

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

This is basically a repeat of the official statements from the Chinese government, not an article based on reliable, independent sources. I don't think a timeline for this region can be made based on such sources though, as the Chinese government tends to be rather controlling. But it is better not to have an article, than to function as the mouthpiece of a government. Fram (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Health and fitness, History, and China. Fram (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a bit conflicted as I think it would be interesting to see a timeline of the official events as described. On the other hand, I agree with the nom that there is doubt as to the reliability of official Chinese sources on this topic, and the page needs a large amount of work and clean-up to even meet the objectives it has set itself. It feels like there's also an element of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH so for all those reasons I think it is better off being ditched. JMWt (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found very limited media sources outside of Chinese ones that may contain government influence, which would not suffice in creating a timeline as extensive as the current one. By the way, does anyone know why there is no main Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in China? Same problem? Seems all other countries but have it. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the number of cases to COVID-19 pandemic in Zhejiang. This article textual content is basically only the government reported case numbers, which can and should be reported in a table. The rest of the content (the videos) is just minor local news fluff which is not appropriate. Jumpytoo Talk 19:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also include Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Zhejiang (2021) and Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Zhejiang (2022) (if it survives PROD) so we don't have to do this again. All 3 "articles" are essentially the same, with just a simple collection of statistics and no discussion in secondary sources. Some of the sources might be usable, but I don't agree with merging to COVID-19 pandemic in Zhejiang since there doesn't appear to be any content that's actually salvageable and would need attribution. There don't appear to be any reliable sources that discuss the article topic itself, rather than announcements of one of the confirmed cases which also makes it fail WP:GNG. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, everybody. This is the article creator. These articles should been put on Wikipedia 2 or 3 years ago by other people, but have not appeared in English until I did so since January of this year. Please talk to users Fixer88 and Rethliopuks, who are more knowledgeable on this topic and have written on it since the first year of the pandemic. I would like to start working on other topics when I finish my part .Ziping53 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 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 St. Louis Maroons/Indianapolis Hoosiers all-time roster. Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Fogarty (baseball)[edit]

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

Played once for a Major League Baseball team. Almost no Information the page, the databases have little else. Not notable, no refs that meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at most this should be merged to his brother's page, since most mentions of him in old newspapers mention that he is the brother of Jim Fogarty. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He should have a biography on page 233 of The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Louis Maroons/Indianapolis Hoosiers all-time roster. Lacks WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article (unfortunately, a WP:BEFORE of John Fogarty baseball is made more difficult due to having to go through the hits for similarly-named singer John Fogerty, known for "Center Field"). I prefer this redirect target to his brother Jim's page since there is no mention of John in Jim's page. Frank Anchor 16:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:SPORTBASIC and doesn't appear to be a likely redirect title. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Since this John Fogarty played baseball at the highest level, his name with “(baseball)” after it is a very reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 04:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the page suggested by Frank Anchor per WP:ATDR - this was the best article I could find on newspapers.com after a quick search. Although I can't access the bio in "The Rank & File", its existence makes me think there is something that could be written about Fogarty on WP, even if it doesn't justify a separate article. Hatman31 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the page suggested by Frank Anchor. While the article fails WP:SPORTBASIC, I do not think it should be deleted entirely because there is a suitable target. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I see a Weak Keep but a Keep, nontheless that includes new sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Scelba-Shorte[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and New Jersey. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few sources. I would go with weak keep here, as she does appear in the news albeit primarily in discussions about what happened to models on the show where she was the runner up. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist to consider the sources added
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to WP:BASIC plus difficult to understand the deletion rationale. I find "fails WP:GNG" to be very short as an explanation and in the context of it obviously being possible to find lots of coverage about her, I would like to understand specifically how she fails WP:GNG and why the resources that we find in searches are not suitable.

I consider WP:BASIC to be passed due to the numerous sources that talk about her modelling and acting career and lupus advocacy. Some sources I found that support this:

Gunter, B. (2014). I Want to Change My Life: Can Reality TV Competition Shows Trigger Lasting Career Success?. United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publisher.
Jet Magazine, Cover Story, Mar 1, 2004 - Page 55, Vol. 105, No. 9
https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/g25575616/americas-next-top-model-best-contestants/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/peloton-ad-star-of-peloton-bike-commercial-appears-in-new-ad-for-aviation-gin-posted-by-ryan-reynolds-2019-12-07/

Some of these are tabloid, hence the "weak" CT55555(talk) 16:33, 15 February 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 University of Calicut. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SAFI Institute of Advanced Study[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement (although a rationale was provided on the talk page). I agree with the prodder, "Non-notable institute, no significant coverage in independent sources. Cited sources are either promotional or non-reliable." Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJ94 (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a private institution it has to meet WP:NCORP, which it currently doesn’t. In many instances we redirect articles in affiliated colleges to the parent university, so I propose we do that unless additional Malayalam sources are shown to make it an NCORP pass. Mccapra (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Calicut fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 18 February 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 13:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wi, Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP; written as an advert. The only two working references are to the company's own website. While not a reason for deletion, 'What links here' indicates no links to the article other than redirects from variations on the article name. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Colorado. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability found on search. Now part of TE Connectivity, but nothing on the current page is worth saving as a merge. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No foundation reference meeting WP:SIRS. Rhadow (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I was unable to find enough significant coverage to establish notability: the article fails WP:NCORP. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the WP:YELLOWPAGES nor a platform for promotion. None of the sources meet our guidelines for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:44, 21 February 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. Basically a G6. Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regional 2 South East[edit]

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

This rugby competition was previously known as London 1 South and was renamed Regional 2 South East in 2022. A new article was created at that title by what looks like a copy & paste from the existing article. This new article needs to be deleted to make room for a move on the old article. Bcp67 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you just do it. I do not think it needs to be discussed here. --Bduke (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't delete articles myself, it needs an admin to do it. --Bcp67 (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably should have been a technical request, but per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 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. No prejudice against creating appropriate redirects. Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Pakistan Super League squads[edit]

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

We don't need separate articles for squad lists for each PSL tournament. The same squad tables are listed in the team articles e.g. Islamabad United in 2022, and the useful basic squad information is listed in the season article e.g. 2023 Pakistan Super League#Squads, with the changes listed in the player draft articles e.g. 2023 Pakistan Super League players draft. No need for a list of all the squads together in a separate article- generally we only do this for ICC World Cup events. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, Cricket, and Pakistan. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the above applies to all PSL squad articles:

Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We might want to redirect to the relevant season article rather than delete - as much as anything to stop the recreation of these sorts of articles. I'd be entirely happy with deleting though - this is just unnecessary. It looks to me as if there's also a huge use of flags and decorative colour on related articles that needs dealing with as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Same thoughts as Blue Square Thing. Bs1jac (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment redirecting to the correct section in the main season articles seems fine to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to relevant section As per BST. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that in some cases squad lists on article pages are transcluded from these. I'm working my way through to deal with them., but it'll take a bit of time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to get through and, I think, dealt with all the transclusions. I don't think I missed any anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if the draft articles for each season clarify the squad. M. Billoo 15:01, 18 February 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 13:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counties 1 Durham & Northumberland[edit]

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

This rugby competition was previously known as Durham/Northumberland 1 and was renamed Counties 1 Durham & Northumberland in 2022. A new article was created at that title by what looks like a copy & paste from the existing article. This new article needs to be deleted to make room for a move on the old article. Bcp67 (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably should have been a technical request, but per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncontroversial deletion could have been handled without an AfD, but support logic of nominator. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 21 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fairprice Family Cook Off (season 2)[edit]

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

Non notable TV show. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom – robertsky (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources in the article and I cannot find any myself. I'm open to the possibility that there are non-English language sources available but at present it does not pass WP:GNG. WJ94 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There appears to be SIGCOV here and here Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a cooking show based on merit, but a de facto paid program for the supermarket sponsoring it. This isn't notable in any way. Nate • (chatter) 23:44, 16 February 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.

National Tom Sawyer Days[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lizthegrey (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan page, excessively promotional, no independent sourcing. Possibly could see merging it into Hannibal, Missouri where the festival allegedly still happens or into Mark Twain, but it's certainly no longer a "national" event, least of all one that meets WP:N. Lizthegrey (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Events, United States of America, and Missouri. Lizthegrey (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Won't comment as yet as I see Lightburst is adding to the page. But maybe add a mention, if this is still ongoing, at Mark Twain Boyhood Home & Museum. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search shows ample mentions of it. New York Times article is hidden behind a paywall, but the Google news search result that points to it shows the start of it reads "They call it National Tom Sawyer Days" https://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/04/us/rising-spirits-a-match-for-the-rising-river-along-stretches-of-the-mississippi.html LA Times behind a paywall has an article at https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-05-15-tr-58185-story.html which the Google news search result says reads: "Hannibal keeps the Mark Twain flame burning with National Tom Sawyer Day". The Library of Congress has some results to look through. [15] The Washington Post article from July 5, 1978 says 20,000 people went to it that year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1978/07/05/tom-sawyer-days-in-the-land-of-twain/dd719d99-a85f-4563-b1f3-8af010ecc815/ Seems to be a notable festival. Dream Focus 17:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
St. Louis Post-Dispatch 26 May 2002, Sun · Page 136 has an article about it. So does St. Joseph News-Press 24 Jun 1990, Sun · Page 47. Newspaper.com has a lot of coverage that appears. I'll add some information to the article. Dream Focus 17:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Thanks for finding those. To get around the paywall I found an archived link for the NYTimes article and for the LATimes article. Lightburst (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this event meets our guidelines for WP:EVENTCRIT#1 and #2. The event is enduring and covered in nationally. I have reorganized and referenced the article, also it is no longer an orphan and no longer suffers from Promo tone issues. Lightburst (talk) 18:16, 15 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Murray[edit]

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

No citations, no specific claim to notability, no specific years played making this impossible to verify. google web search turns up no hits for `"Leo Murray" "bohemians" "ireland"`. Lizthegrey (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Lizthegrey (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:SPORTBASIC ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources"). Per nom, a search of national news sources (like the Irish Examiner or the Irish Times or similar) returns nothing. Not even passing mentions. A search through the Irish Newspapers Archives platform returns a handful of passing mentions, including in Dublin's Evening Herald newspaper (which covers/covered national and regional association football games). And, perhaps(?), two results in the Irish Independent. However, these are all just passing mentions in match reports. And, even if each mention is the same Leo Murray, only confirms that he played with a few (amateur?) teams in Dublin during the 1960s (Bohs and Fairview CYMS?). Which wouldn't automatically indicate notability. Absent a claim to notability in the body, and coverage to the extent that WP:SPORTBASIC is met, I cannot see how can support retention.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination and in Guliolopez's very helpful comments. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and above comments: the article does not currently pass WP:SPORTBASIC and there is not enough significant coverage to justify the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, to provide a decent amount of time to search for plausible sources. If the date of birth supplied in the article is correct, there is an actuarial probability that this subject has died, and an obituary is sitting somewhere. BD2412 T 22:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we think more time will help? This article has had the BLP sources template on it since March 2008. It can always be re-created if sources do turn up other than a single pamphlet/event programme that a fan says they had two decades ago which nobody else can verify. Lizthegrey (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:22, 20 February 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 20:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ebu Press Ltd[edit]

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

Article deleted after RPOD with reason "Non-notable publisher of non-notable journals. References are either in-passing mentions, trivial listings, or obvious press releases.". Article restored upon request of article creator without reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Companies. Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No foundation reference meeting WP:SIRS. What remains is in-passing mentions. Rhadow (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rhadow,

Thank you very much for your comment. I have studied the WP: SIRS guidelines of Wikipedia. It said,

"1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth."

-So far this publisher received news coverage with three main articles here,

a. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/346240/All-journals-of-Ebu-Press--now-indexed-in--CAS?fbclid=IwAR06X6FB3qR_NaWLlqrJTMcbbPDhu_HgKb0HE1nDBoHgf5xOf-WD87AXn3k

b. https://www.newagebd.net/article/192604/ebu-press-scientific-journals-included-in-cas?fbclid=IwAR2z7BuTGiQZMON2EYv7REVMDjnqXM5NGVvsAdDykUxe_8x_GYTLTT1PWVQ

c. http://agrilife24.com/2021/2018-03-19-12-26-20/8547-cas24ja.html?fbclid=IwAR2SAjbL-bXEiUvXy91hM2cSUgFBJQ11dXTyIfBkeyz4bTnoV2uHMF_Jby4

All of the newspapers featured the news has Bangladeshi national coverage.

"2. Be completely independent of the article subject."

-The news covered publisher's other activities along with the publishing work. As this is the Wikipedia page regarding publication company, so I did not focus the other activities of the organization.

"3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source."

-As I told above, all of the newspapers are highly reliable and nationwide circulated newspaper.

"4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability."

-Due to this rule, I did not cite the publisher's website page as a reference. All of the references sources are reliable and secondary.

Thank you very much again.

Asifupm22

Asifupm22 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable people can disagree. I don't think that any of the citations meet the requirement for a foundation reference. They sound like rehashed press releases to me. They do not "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." Rhadow (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pharaoh of the Wizards,

Thank you very much for your comment. The news covered the Ebu Press Ltd are,

a. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/346240/All-journals-of-Ebu-Press--now-indexed-in--CAS?fbclid=IwAR06X6FB3qR_NaWLlqrJTMcbbPDhu_HgKb0HE1nDBoHgf5xOf-WD87AXn3k

b. https://www.newagebd.net/article/192604/ebu-press-scientific-journals-included-in-cas?fbclid=IwAR2z7BuTGiQZMON2EYv7REVMDjnqXM5NGVvsAdDykUxe_8x_GYTLTT1PWVQ

c. http://agrilife24.com/2021/2018-03-19-12-26-20/8547-cas24ja.html?fbclid=IwAR2SAjbL-bXEiUvXy91hM2cSUgFBJQ11dXTyIfBkeyz4bTnoV2uHMF_Jby4

These news are not only the mention of inclusion in a selected database, but also covered the other social activities of this publisher as well. The news published in newspapers are in-depth, however, as Ebu Press Ltd is a publisher, so that, I only focused on the publishing activities in wikipedia page.

Thank you again.

Asifupm22 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Almeida Fernando,

Thank you very much for your comment. I have studied the Wikipedia notability guidelines, there the main features are,

>"Presumed": The publisher and its journals (please see wikipedia reference list) received significantly reliable coverage by national print media and their news features are so far in-depth. eg,

a. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/346240/All-journals-of-Ebu-Press--now-indexed-in--CAS?fbclid=IwAR06X6FB3qR_NaWLlqrJTMcbbPDhu_HgKb0HE1nDBoHgf5xOf-WD87AXn3k

b. https://www.newagebd.net/article/192604/ebu-press-scientific-journals-included-in-cas?fbclid=IwAR2z7BuTGiQZMON2EYv7REVMDjnqXM5NGVvsAdDykUxe_8x_GYTLTT1PWVQ

c. http://agrilife24.com/2021/2018-03-19-12-26-20/8547-cas24ja.html?fbclid=IwAR2SAjbL-bXEiUvXy91hM2cSUgFBJQ11dXTyIfBkeyz4bTnoV2uHMF_Jby4

>Significant coverage": The publisher received significant coverage by national (Bangladesh) newspapers.

>"Reliable": All of the national daily are reliable, including, New Age, New Nation, and Agrilife 24.

>"Sources": All the mentioned sources in wiki article are secondary.

>"Independent of the subject": News, a,b,c completely focused on the publisher's activities including the social services it is performing to the society and students. On the other hand, it also mentioned CAS inclusion.

Thank you very much.

Asifupm22 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply fails notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Onel5969,

Thank you very much for your comment. I have studied the Wikipedia notability guidelines, there the main features are,

>"Presumed": The publisher and its journals (please see wikipedia reference list) received significantly reliable coverage by national print media and their news features are so far in-depth. eg,

a. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/346240/All-journals-of-Ebu-Press--now-indexed-in--CAS?fbclid=IwAR06X6FB3qR_NaWLlqrJTMcbbPDhu_HgKb0HE1nDBoHgf5xOf-WD87AXn3k

b. https://www.newagebd.net/article/192604/ebu-press-scientific-journals-included-in-cas?fbclid=IwAR2z7BuTGiQZMON2EYv7REVMDjnqXM5NGVvsAdDykUxe_8x_GYTLTT1PWVQ

c. http://agrilife24.com/2021/2018-03-19-12-26-20/8547-cas24ja.html?fbclid=IwAR2SAjbL-bXEiUvXy91hM2cSUgFBJQ11dXTyIfBkeyz4bTnoV2uHMF_Jby4

>Significant coverage": The publisher received significant coverage by national (Bangladesh) newspapers.

>"Reliable": All of the national daily are reliable, including, New Age, New Nation, and Agrilife 24.

>"Sources": All the mentioned sources in wiki article are secondary.

>"Independent of the subject": News, a,b,c completely focused on the publisher's activities including the social services it is performing to the society and students. On the other hand, it also mentioned CAS inclusion.

Thank you very much.

Asifupm22 (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Asifupm22 you don't need to copy and paste the same response to each !vote. Also be aware of WP:BLUDGEON. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @HighKing,

Thank you for mentioning about this. I was not aware of this protocols. I will not reply with same comments again.

Thanks again.

Asifupm22 (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Also, the "quality" of the publisher WP:RS is assumed for the most part.

Looking at the refences mentioned above, they also fail GNG/NCORP as follows:

This notice in The New Nation is based entirely on a press release (says in the article) with no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. This looks like the press release and it was published some days previously.
This in New Age fails for the exact same reason. Fails ORGIND

Note that the three sources above also do not include in-depth information about the topic company, also fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absence of significane coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. WJ94 (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asian-Australasian Journal of Bioscience and Biotechnology[edit]

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

Article deleted after PROD with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources discussing the journal in-depth (several don't even mention the journal). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article restored upon request by creator, without reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only sources which discuss this journal in detail seem to be press releases, and it fails WP:NJOURNAL. WJ94 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear WJ94,,

Thank you very much for your comment. I don't think they are just some press release, as press release focused on a particular topic, here all of the featured news are comparatively extended and elaborated.

I have studeid the WP:JOURNAL Criterias. The journal meets,

-Criterion 1

-Criterion 2

-G.b)

-Criterion 1 (C1): 1.a); In Google scholar, it contains 383 citations, so far and h-index: 10. As the number of published articles are low the citations received are not high.

-Criterion 2 (C2): 2.a) National newspaper coverage

-2.b): Indexed in Chemical Abstract (according to it's nature); h-index: 10; i10-index: 11

-Criterion 3 (C3): 3.a)

As this is a STEM journal, it does not cover historical object.

Thank you very much again.

Asifupm22 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Almeida Fernando,

Thank you very much for your comment. I have studied the Wikipedia notability guidelines. There the main features are,

>"Presumed": The journal received significantly reliable coverage by national print media and their news features are so far in-depth. eg,

a. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/344959/AAJBB-contributing-to-bioscience,-biotechnology-research-publication?fbclid=IwAR2VodT7HM-adECYhWMN0P9TmtlASNUEjYNXPvFmV_0OilueT7fEyA5STlE

b. https://www.newagebd.net/article/191631/aajbb-contributes-to-bioscience-tech-research?fbclid=IwAR0KI093pFDbmUpoV6vqHiQd1Q0N9Iyw9Te4RG9LHkTE8aeqYiskBWrHLSc

c. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/346240/All-journals-of-Ebu-Press--now-indexed-in--CAS?fbclid=IwAR0KI093pFDbmUpoV6vqHiQd1Q0N9Iyw9Te4RG9LHkTE8aeqYiskBWrHLSc

d. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/344959/AAJBB-contributing-to-bioscience,-biotechnology-research-publication?fbclid=IwAR2VodT7HM-adECYhWMN0P9TmtlASNUEjYNXPvFmV_0OilueT7fEyA5STlE

e. https://www.newagebd.net/article/192604/ebu-press-scientific-journals-included-in-cas?fbclid=IwAR0JUjnN3knrm3rTf08bNBp2rMjzDSPW4nCiorJCrHIaFKrSiSFioavgUJU

>Significant coverage": The journal received significant coverage by national (Bangladesh) newspapers. Some articles are cited by recognized journals and they are indexed in Scopus and Web of Science databases.

>"Reliable": All of the national daily featured AAJBB are reliable, including, New Age, New Nation, and Agrilife 24.

>"Sources": All the mentioned sources in wiki article are secondary.

>"Independent of the subject": News, a,b,c,d,e are completely focused on the in-depth journal's history and workflow.

Thank you very much.

Asifupm22 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In passing mentions and regurgitated press releases don't meet WP:SIRS. Rhadow (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rhadow,

Thank you very much for your comment. I have studied the WP: SIRS guidelines of Wikipedia. It said,

"1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth."

-So far this journal received news coverage with some main articles here,

a. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/344959/AAJBB-contributing-to-bioscience,-biotechnology-research-publication?fbclid=IwAR2VodT7HM-adECYhWMN0P9TmtlASNUEjYNXPvFmV_0OilueT7fEyA5STlE

b. https://www.newagebd.net/article/191631/aajbb-contributes-to-bioscience-tech-research?fbclid=IwAR0KI093pFDbmUpoV6vqHiQd1Q0N9Iyw9Te4RG9LHkTE8aeqYiskBWrHLSc

c. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/346240/All-journals-of-Ebu-Press--now-indexed-in--CAS?fbclid=IwAR0KI093pFDbmUpoV6vqHiQd1Q0N9Iyw9Te4RG9LHkTE8aeqYiskBWrHLSc

d. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/344959/AAJBB-contributing-to-bioscience,-biotechnology-research-publication?fbclid=IwAR2VodT7HM-adECYhWMN0P9TmtlASNUEjYNXPvFmV_0OilueT7fEyA5STlE

e. https://www.newagebd.net/article/192604/ebu-press-scientific-journals-included-in-cas?fbclid=IwAR0JUjnN3knrm3rTf08bNBp2rMjzDSPW4nCiorJCrHIaFKrSiSFioavgUJU

All of the newspapers featured the news has Bangladeshi national coverage.

"2. Be completely independent of the article subject."

-The news covered journal activities along with the publishing work. As this is the Wikipedia page regarding a journal, so I did not focus the other activities of the journal.

"3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source."

-As I told above, all of the newspapers are highly reliable and nationwide circulated newspaper.

"4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability."

- All of the references sources are reliable and secondary.

Thank you very much again.

Asifupm22 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating yourself six times does not make your argument any more convincing. There is no foundation article that "Contain[s] significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." As far as I concerned, neither this journal nor the publishing house are notable. I agree with the editor who opined on a sister journal, "Not even close to meeting either WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Rhadow (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: the article currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear InterstellarGamer12321,

Thank you very much for your comment. I have studied the WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG.

The journal meets WP:NJOURNAL,

-Criterion 1

-Criterion 2

-G.b)

-Criterion 1 (C1): 1.a); In Google scholar, it contains 383 citations, so far and h-index: 10. As the number of published articles are low the citations received are not high.

-Criterion 2 (C2): 2.a) National newspaper coverage

-2.b): Indexed in Chemical Abstract (according to it's nature); h-index: 10; i10-index: 11

-Criterion 3 (C3): 3.a)

As this is a STEM journal, it does not cover historical object.

The main features of WP:GNG are,

>"Presumed": The journal received significantly reliable coverage by national print media and their news features are so far in-depth. eg,

a. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/344959/AAJBB-contributing-to-bioscience,-biotechnology-research-publication?fbclid=IwAR2VodT7HM-adECYhWMN0P9TmtlASNUEjYNXPvFmV_0OilueT7fEyA5STlE

b. https://www.newagebd.net/article/191631/aajbb-contributes-to-bioscience-tech-research?fbclid=IwAR0KI093pFDbmUpoV6vqHiQd1Q0N9Iyw9Te4RG9LHkTE8aeqYiskBWrHLSc

c. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/346240/All-journals-of-Ebu-Press--now-indexed-in--CAS?fbclid=IwAR0KI093pFDbmUpoV6vqHiQd1Q0N9Iyw9Te4RG9LHkTE8aeqYiskBWrHLSc

d. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/344959/AAJBB-contributing-to-bioscience,-biotechnology-research-publication?fbclid=IwAR2VodT7HM-adECYhWMN0P9TmtlASNUEjYNXPvFmV_0OilueT7fEyA5STlE

e. https://www.newagebd.net/article/192604/ebu-press-scientific-journals-included-in-cas?fbclid=IwAR0JUjnN3knrm3rTf08bNBp2rMjzDSPW4nCiorJCrHIaFKrSiSFioavgUJU

>Significant coverage": The journal received significant coverage by national (Bangladesh) newspapers. Some articles are cited by recognized journals and they are indexed in Scopus and Web of Science databases.

>"Reliable": All of the national daily featured AAJBB are reliable, including, New Age, New Nation, and Agrilife 24.

>"Sources": All the mentioned sources in wiki article are secondary.

>"Independent of the subject": News, a,b,c,d,e are completely focused on the in-depth journal's history and workflow.

Thank you very much again.

Asifupm22 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see how this passes either NJOURNAL or GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Onel5969,

Thank you very much for your comment. I have studied the WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG.

The journal meets WP:NJOURNAL,

-Criterion 1

-Criterion 2

-G.b)

-Criterion 1 (C1): 1.a); In Google scholar, it contains 383 citations, so far and h-index: 10. As the number of published articles are low the citations received are not high.

-Criterion 2 (C2): 2.a) National newspaper coverage

-2.b): Indexed in Chemical Abstract (according to it's nature); h-index: 10; i10-index: 11

-Criterion 3 (C3): 3.a)

As this is a STEM journal, it does not cover historical object.

The main features of WP:GNG are,

>"Presumed": The journal received significantly reliable coverage by national print media and their news features are so far in-depth. eg,

a. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/344959/AAJBB-contributing-to-bioscience,-biotechnology-research-publication?fbclid=IwAR2VodT7HM-adECYhWMN0P9TmtlASNUEjYNXPvFmV_0OilueT7fEyA5STlE

b. https://www.newagebd.net/article/191631/aajbb-contributes-to-bioscience-tech-research?fbclid=IwAR0KI093pFDbmUpoV6vqHiQd1Q0N9Iyw9Te4RG9LHkTE8aeqYiskBWrHLSc

c. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/346240/All-journals-of-Ebu-Press--now-indexed-in--CAS?fbclid=IwAR0KI093pFDbmUpoV6vqHiQd1Q0N9Iyw9Te4RG9LHkTE8aeqYiskBWrHLSc

d. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/344959/AAJBB-contributing-to-bioscience,-biotechnology-research-publication?fbclid=IwAR2VodT7HM-adECYhWMN0P9TmtlASNUEjYNXPvFmV_0OilueT7fEyA5STlE

e. https://www.newagebd.net/article/192604/ebu-press-scientific-journals-included-in-cas?fbclid=IwAR0JUjnN3knrm3rTf08bNBp2rMjzDSPW4nCiorJCrHIaFKrSiSFioavgUJU

>Significant coverage": The journal received significant coverage by national (Bangladesh) newspapers. Some articles are cited by recognized journals and they are indexed in Scopus and Web of Science databases.

>"Reliable": All of the national daily featured AAJBB are reliable, including, New Age, New Nation, and Agrilife 24.

>"Sources": All the mentioned sources in wiki article are secondary.

>"Independent of the subject": News, a,b,c,d,e are completely focused on the in-depth journal's history and workflow.

Thank you very much again.

Asifupm22 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pharaoh of the Wizards,

Thank you very much for your comment. I have studied the WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG.

The journal meets WP:NJOURNAL,

-Criterion 1

-Criterion 2

-G.b)

-Criterion 1 (C1): 1.a); In Google scholar, it contains 383 citations, so far and h-index: 10. As the number of published articles are low the citations received are not high.

-Criterion 2 (C2): 2.a) National newspaper coverage

-2.b): Indexed in Chemical Abstract (according to it's nature); h-index: 10; i10-index: 11

-Criterion 3 (C3): 3.a)

As this is a STEM journal, it does not cover historical object.

The main features of WP:GNG are,

>"Presumed": The journal received significantly reliable coverage by national print media and their news features are so far in-depth. eg,

a. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/344959/AAJBB-contributing-to-bioscience,-biotechnology-research-publication?fbclid=IwAR2VodT7HM-adECYhWMN0P9TmtlASNUEjYNXPvFmV_0OilueT7fEyA5STlE

b. https://www.newagebd.net/article/191631/aajbb-contributes-to-bioscience-tech-research?fbclid=IwAR0KI093pFDbmUpoV6vqHiQd1Q0N9Iyw9Te4RG9LHkTE8aeqYiskBWrHLSc

c. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/346240/All-journals-of-Ebu-Press--now-indexed-in--CAS?fbclid=IwAR0KI093pFDbmUpoV6vqHiQd1Q0N9Iyw9Te4RG9LHkTE8aeqYiskBWrHLSc

d. https://thedailynewnation.com/news/344959/AAJBB-contributing-to-bioscience,-biotechnology-research-publication?fbclid=IwAR2VodT7HM-adECYhWMN0P9TmtlASNUEjYNXPvFmV_0OilueT7fEyA5STlE

e. https://www.newagebd.net/article/192604/ebu-press-scientific-journals-included-in-cas?fbclid=IwAR0JUjnN3knrm3rTf08bNBp2rMjzDSPW4nCiorJCrHIaFKrSiSFioavgUJU

>Significant coverage": The journal received significant coverage by national (Bangladesh) newspapers. Some articles are cited by recognized journals and they are indexed in Scopus and Web of Science databases.

>"Reliable": All of the national daily featured AAJBB are reliable, including, New Age, New Nation, and Agrilife 24.

>"Sources": All the mentioned sources in wiki article are secondary.

>"Independent of the subject": News, a,b,c,d,e are completely focused on the in-depth journal's history and workflow.

Thank you very much again.

Asifupm22 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 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!} 08:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Apostolic Church[edit]

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

All the matches on Google Scholar are false positives.

Two of the sources used in this article are mailing lists (cryonet.org and listserv.ru.ac.za).

All I could find are WP:PASSING mentions of this denomination in articles from February 2002 about its founder Freddie Isaacs having predicted his own death and still being alive after the announced date ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]). The secondary sources Dispatch Online and The Herald Online in this article report the same event.

Health-e and IOL News used in the article also cover events related to Freddie Isaacs, but not to his denomination.

Therefore, this denomination does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NCHURCH; so I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unbelievable that this has survived here since 2009! Hard to tell whether it’s an attack page or an honest piece of promotion for outrageous quackery, but mercifully it’s not notable so it doesn’t matter. Mccapra (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for the records, the equivalent on WPaf was deleted in 2010. Veverve (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mccapra. Not notable. --Bduke (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:GNG due to only passing mentions in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 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!} 08:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Andersen[edit]

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

not notable, puff piece, WP:AUTO violation. all of the cited awards/top X shortlist refs are obscure or from very narrow categories (e.g. "top 5 english language business books in China in 2013"); Forbes Contributor and HBR allow self-publishing. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Forbes pieces are contributor pieces and written by her. The rest are simply interviews or repeating what's said elsewhere. Self promotion. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. Puff piece. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and above comments. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am Erika_Andersen. Do I qualify for a page (with all the promotion removed) under WP:AUTHOR#1 ("widely cited by peers")? Please see a list of academic journals citing me here. Erika1952 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Kilhoffer[edit]

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

PROD was rejected, just gonna put what I wrote for that here:

"WP:DIRECTORY. Appears to only reach for notability for his Grammys (though he is among a long list of collaborators on all four of those projects) but the article severely lacks in prose and the subject severely lacks for SIGCOV (I saw interviews, including the Pitchfork one already here, but nothing else)."

User:Bri, who contested the PROD, says the Grammys should be worth a pass based on WP:NCREATIVE #4 ("has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."), but as I said I wouldn't consider it a major role because he is "among a long list of collaborators on all four of those projects". QuietHere (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. QuietHere (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rap albums have a lot of production credits. There is no threshold of number of Grammy winners when we start to ignore them. It's not up to me to decide "too many" and start deleting biographies of Grammy winners. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more willing to go along with this if it weren't the only qualification this person has. Lemme put it this way: All three of the Kanye albums Kilhoffer has won Grammys for also include credits for Mike Dean. Looking at his article, I wouldn't begin to question his notability. He's worked on numerous major releases over the years in various capacities and has received independent coverage for his work for several major publications. The same can be said for several other artists involved in those projects, but it can't be said for Anthony Kilhoffer. Unless there's coverage that I didn't see in which case I'd ask you to link that here and prove me wrong, but until then this falls directly under WP:DIRECTORY. For a page that is just a discography and a list of awards, users should go to his AllMusic page instead. QuietHere (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two main items in this discussion that require address.

1. There is a potential bias/unfamiliarity issue that I’m seeing pop up in numerous conversations regarding notability of collaborators on hip hop projects. The nature of hip hop production is different from pop or rock genre writing that naturally includes a broader scope of collaboration. It does not dilute the contributions or significance of writer & producer contribution to hip hop songs or albums merely because there are more people on these albums than other genres. It toes a very dangerous line to assume that there is a difference in significance of contribution merely because it is a different genre of music (and in this case, a genre predominantly composed of black american artists carrying forward a unique cultural tradition).

2. Anthon Kilhoffer is a significant contributor to the projects he’s worked on. There has been significant additional press on him (including interviews) in the years since this article was created. I will update the page, and no - it should not be deleted. Mistamystery (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistamystery: Are you saying the article should be kept, then? Sorry to be pedantic but it has to be clear to the closer of this debate. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is possibly seen through his rap albums and music achievements. I would not claim the subject is clearly not notable, so I lean towards keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozzcircuit (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That he was part of not just one, but four Grammy-winning albums suggests notability to me, even if he was part of a large-ish group. Joyous! | Talk 02:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I still believe this article to be a blatant WP:DIRECTORY fail, and none of the responses have been about that. I stand by all the points I made above, both in my opening and in response to Bri, and have not seen a proper dispute of them. I'm surprised this got a relist, though perhaps Liz sees the same lack of proper counterarguments that I do. QuietHere (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left a notice regarding this AfD at WikiProject Musicians. I suspect this is heading toward a no consensus close at the moment and I'd be more annoyed by that than a keep I disagree with, so hopefully more folks see this through that and we actually get somewhere worth all our time. QuietHere (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Bri and WP:NCREATIVE. JSFarman (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Pinheiro Rodrigues[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLY and WP:NGYMNAST. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keepmentioned events in the article are covered by dozens of news sites. Added one sentence about 2012 Olympics with source. Pelmeen10 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lizthegrey (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kriegsberg Tower[edit]

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

No sources or supplied reason why it might be notable. Lizthegrey (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Germany. Lizthegrey (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The de.wiki article shows that there are sufficient sources to show notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the German Wiki article it is clearly a listed monument that has also won an award. I've expanded it with the description, 2 references and 6 book sources. Bermicourt (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lizthegrey (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five Peaks Garden[edit]

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

No indications of why this place is notable. Lizthegrey (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and China. Lizthegrey (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although this is not one of the UNESCO-designated Classical Gardens of Suzhou, it may be in the broader group of "national cultural heritage sites", if anyone has access to an official list? AllyD (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a listed/registered cultural heritage site of the province of Jiangsu, see here. Mccapra (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks to Mccapra - that heritage document indicates that this garden meets the Artificial geographical features provision under WP:GEOFEAT (as well as providing a lot of historical detail which could expand the article). AllyD (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Link provided by Mccapra shows garden is listed/registered as a cultural heritage site. Wil540 art (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from my research this garden does not appear to be a World Heritage Site i also cannot see that it is a cultural heritage site, but based on the reference provided by Mccapra " In 2002, it was listed as a cultural relic protection unit in Jiangsu Province." I have done some organizing and added a few sections including a history section. i also relocated several references from then lead to the body and erased one that was a bare mention. The Garden dates to the Ming dynasty and has SIGCOV so it meets WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recent edits have made notability more clear, my own searches indicates notability, including significant coverage in a book. CT55555(talk) 19:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to Mccapra's source, the Henderson source seems to me to establish notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 15 February 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Red (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER. Many of the sections are entirely unsourced. No significant coverage found. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 06:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 06:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: the article currently fails WP:NSINGER and does not have enough significant coverage to justify itself. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've just closed an RM to move it to a new title. This has no bearing on the AfD, of course, but I've edited some parts of the templatery to aid editors. Sceptre (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 162 etc. (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has gained some media coverage, mostly involving his charity work, such as [23]. The article currently has a citation to a Boston Globe article about him that was a healthy 1643 words but it is paywalled. So the situation is not as bad as most of the folks above have implied. But despite a long career and a few notices, the rapper hasn't gotten too far beyond his own hype. Also note that this article and its online copycats say he was mentioned in the The Source, but anything from that magazine itself cannot be found via a targeted search. And finally, I suspect that the pic at the top of the article is Photoshopped. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 21 February 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spigot Inc[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in any form, fails WP:NCORP while also reading as WP:PROMO fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found. Fails WP:ORG. Charsaddian (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No foundation reference meeting WP:SIRS. Rhadow (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I was not able to find enough significant content for it to pass WP:NCORP. It also may fail WP:ORG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The deletion rationale states "there's a chance it doesnt pass GNG", please only nominate articles that you are sure don't pass GNG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petrus Lengkong[edit]

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

Pointed in the DYKN, and I struggled to find other sources, other than these few and the said suspected (Bergelora), so there's a chance it doesnt pass GNG Nyanardsan (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nyanardsan (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existing sourcing in the article seems sufficient to meet WP:GNG. There's a profile in Jakarta Post, an obituary from Antara, and several other sources that appear adequate. What's the concern here exactly? Jfire (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Military, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Maybe just enough. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because it can be argued that there is enough notability to justify the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 16 February 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 01:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McCormick (actor)[edit]

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

Long career, but no coverage in any sources found. Not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is currently on Broadway in A Beautiful Noise (musical). He played John Adams on Broadway in 1776, Oscar in Curtains, and The Wizard of Oz in Wicked, among other roles. He played Max and Thénardier in national tours of The Producers and Les Miserables, and several leading roles at The Muny, which is a major regional theatre. Plus, he has guested on a couple of dozen TV shows. I don't think there's a good reason to delete, although the referencing and prose obviously needs an upgrade. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the number/importance of roles likely meeting WP:NACTOR #1, here are some sources found via newspapers.com that provide coverage, biographic details, and positive reviews: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] (and there are some more sources to be found in there!). Skynxnex (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above: there is enough significant coverage to justify the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same reasons as above. Blueflash4 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, and WP:NACTOR. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:34, 22 February 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 World War II bomb disposal in Europe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great Yarmouth explosion[edit]

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

Event with limited coverage. Old bomb found, people leave the area, bomb exploded, people return. No injuries, no property damage. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment events like this always sort-of meet notability on a technical basis: there will be immediate news coverage, and Yarmouth being a seaside resort of some size will has guide-books and histories written about it, future versions of which will inevitably mention the incident, providing some sustained coverage, though maybe with limited depth. But the nominator is right; this isn't a major event. I don't think it needs an article of its own. It might be worth a mention in the main article on Yarmouth?? Elemimele (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Events like this should meet WP:NEVENT and as a local event with little lasting significance, this one does not. It has a brief mention in World War II bomb disposal in Europe and that should be sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World War II bomb disposal in Europe where it is mentioned. While it is not notable enough to be kept, there is some notability so it should not be deleted either. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World War II bomb disposal in Europe. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Mztourist (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to World War II bomb disposal in Europe - not news, highly unnotable. greyzxq ^talk 22:20, 20 February 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 01:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstrom Products Company[edit]

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

PRODded (courtesy @Courcelles:), which was challenged by creator. A BEFORE indicates a name change, but nothing approaching WP:ORG level coverage for this company. Star Mississippi 02:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Illinois. Star Mississippi 02:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage. Their website, their Linkedin, then database listings are all Google turns up. I don't doubt the 1978 newspaper article mentioned talks about them, but if that's all there is for sourcing, we aren't at GNG. I can't find anything extra about them. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is not enough significant coverage to justify the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:40, 20 February 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 01:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Crosbie (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Lacking indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am able to find a number of passing references, but no in-depth coverage, as mentioned by nominator. Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks in-depth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:18, 21 February 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!} 04:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JOJA[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Beyond having two famous founders, there is nothing about the brand. All PR releases or a mention in Glossy magazine, long way from CORP or even GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Companies, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-02 ✗ R2 ← 2023-02 move to → Draft:JOJA

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 01:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP ABHammad (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:39, 18 February 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 01:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avaada Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine funding news, annoucements, PR. scope_creep^Talk 00:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: As per nomination. --- 👑Misterrrrr👑 (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC) blocked as a sock. Akevsharma (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this should be posted in Wikiprojects relevant to India? I am unfamiliar with the sources used, so I'm not knowledgeable enough on the sources present to evaluate if they pass WP:RS for establishing notability Graywalls (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assuming the sources meet WP:RS, they don't meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:39, 18 February 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Ahmadi[edit]

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

Fails notability, he only participated at a World Championship without significant results and his so-called Asian medals are in youth categories and they are not seniors. whoever made the article (probably himself) didn't mention that. except his ICF profile you rarely can find any news about him anywhere. Sports2021 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: the article is not notable. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also per above. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:13, 21 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EOS International[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Could not find significant coverage, also searched by long name. 8 of the provided sources are its own website. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely a wonderful organization, but no one outside the organization has spilled sufficient ink since 2011 to meet WP:SIRS. Rhadow (talk) 18:53, 16 February 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.