< January 14 January 16 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judd Hamilton[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Judd Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

sources consist of 45cat (unreliable), discogs (unreliable), a whole bunch of primary sources, and unrelated sources. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note to participants: whether or not we have a Wikipedia article is determined based on notability, usually demonstrated by substantive coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of what is currently on the page. As things stand very little of the commentary directly impinges on whether we should keep the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete
The source is cited and mentioned but not for the whole
Source assessment table: prepared by User:WngLdr34
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/jan/05/music-still-keeps-late-rock-stars-memory-alive/ Yes Yes The source is an essay No The source discusses the subject in part ✘ No
https://www.historylink.org/File/7490 Yes Yes This is a state archive of Washington State ~ ~ Partial
https://www.historylink.org/File/7636 Yes Yes This is a state archive of Washington State ~ The article mentions the subject briefly ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Originally I was bound to keep but after reading the wikipedia notability standards and information, AND searching google, its like this man does not exist! minimal SCOV. I can't even extract information and had to pull teeth to get this table. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC) striking sock lettherebedarklight晚安 01:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this book is published by a vanity press, Page Publishing, and therefore is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. However, I do see that it has been added to the collections of a few libraries, so that's a bit of a plus. Still, self-published materials do not go far in establishing notability. Lamona (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to weak keep because of the large number of sources that Karl Twist has found. I think that due to the age of these events/products and the time that has passed, the plethora of mentions could be considered sufficient for GNG. Lamona (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lamona: - Reply to above, Hi I have gotten rid of most of the 45cat and Discogs references. Replaced them with more acceptable refs. In doing so I realized that Judd Hamilton had been a member of three notable surf bands, 2 of which were big. The T-Bones and The Marketts. I should have brought this up earlier, but it slipped my mind I'm ashamed to say. Anyway, I put in a good amount of work to clean up the refs. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a block on the IP range from editing the article so I contacted the admin who imposed the block to see if it should be extended to a total block. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I actually had a hit at JSTOR, but it doesn't really help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure more could be found. For example, checking the Newspaper Archive, the Cedar Rapids Gazette, October 25, 1968, has a little article in its Hollywood column on "Pop Singer Judd Hamilton, making his movie debut in Walter Shenson's 'A Talent for Loving', adding that people would hear him "warble three tunes in the sex comedy". This is an RS for a passage currently just sourced to FilmAffinity. Finding those old sources takes time, but I reckon they exist and notability doesn't mind if a source is sixty years old. Andreas JN466 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At AfD, there are often excuses for why proper sourcing cannot be found. It's an ongoing fallacy an unfortunate number of people have that such excuses mean that the provisions of WP:V and WP:N should be waived in the subjects' favor. The real answer is "Then an article on the subject cannot be sustained." Ravenswing 17:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some sources have been put forward in the last few comments that would a priori appear to count toward notability; relisting to allow discussion of these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again? TBH, I was hoping for at least a "no consensus" keep closure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I was thinking the same thing. Possibly that person who has been making mischief has distorted or helped to distort the view of things. Maybe? Anyway, I see they've been crossed off. Karl Twist (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

École Française Internationale de Riyad[edit]

École Française Internationale de Riyad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. French article only has 1 source too. LibStar (talk) 22:40, 15 January 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! 04:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Dean Harris[edit]

Scott Dean Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no reliable sources or coverage of what you see, friends Opps Noor (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is me! I may not be as notable as some famous people, but I have had a notable life and have done many things. As a cancer survivor I plan to expand my own legacy and do good for the world. I am currently working on several new projects and I am and have contributed substantially to philanthropy. I am also working on a book called “Entrepreneur: The Incredible Adventure”. I expect my Wikipedia page to be expanded substantially over the next 10 years. I have largely been in semi-retirement, but that is changing and I am involved with several large, potentially world changing events.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would not delete my page. I can provide evidence for everything that is on the page, including original corporate documents, sales documents of various companies and more. Given a bit of time you will have a lot of more relevant current sources. Much of what I have achieved is older, like starting the first ISP in San Antonio Texas. There aren’t brand new articles about it. You CAN find old business journal articles about these things and things like that. But maybe those sources don’t meet your requirements. But they are factual none the less.

Let me know what I can do to help. I can provide a phone number and email address if required for direct communication if that helps.

Thank you, Scott Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottDeanHarris1 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhyar Memon[edit]

Sindhyar Memon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think it meets Wikipedia's requirements Opps Noor (talk) 21:21, 15 January 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers (film)[edit]

Rangers (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE.

Previously deleted via PROD in 2009 for failing WP:NFILM. Article was recreated in 2017. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:23, 8 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! 20:54, 15 January 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 Jonah Wittkamper. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Investor Coalition[edit]

Amazon Investor Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wanted this to be notable, but couldn't find any independent/secondary coverage despite its institutional support from UN, World Bank etc... May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:40, 15 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders[edit]

List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTN. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collective business system[edit]

Collective business system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be covered by the main articles so I cannot see the need for this one Chidgk1 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:32, 8 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! 18:23, 15 January 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! 04:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hadden[edit]

Robert Hadden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is almost the archeotype of WP:CRIME in that because he is JUST known for the crime and the crime does not fall under unique and unusual stances it should be deleted since it violates BLP. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:34, 8 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! 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmill (musician)[edit]

Blackmill (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This artist is not unknown. But the subject lacks notability, due to lack of sources. My WP:BEFORE does not reveal that the subject meets WP:GNG (no in-depth coverage), WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:BASIC (most sources don't contribute to notability). The used sources are really bad, such as the booking agency website and edm.com, which publishes sponsored content (on their website: "In the interest of journalistic integrity we here at EDM.com are committed to the transparency of our business model. A portion of our content is sponsored by advertisers and we cover music released by the record labels with which we partner.") —Alalch E. 11:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not WP:RS. —Alalch E. 19:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was surprised to see Blackmill here. I clicked on the entry and was even more surprised to see what a poorly written, woefully incomplete article this is. Blackmill is a well known entity: 3 full length albums, and his top song "Let It Be" has almost 37M listens on Spotify (despite being from 2011, before the widespread adoption of Spotify). Matter of fact, his top 5 songs have over 20M listens on Spotify (I know, probably not WP:RS too, but definitely important for GNG)... not to mention constant play throughout radio, internet radio, and concerts throughout the early-mid 2010s. IMHO, this is an article needing expansion and cleanup, not deletion.
I'm not sure what type of sources nominator is expecting, but in the EDM world, Blackmill has gotten a lot of press. Here is one such article: [10]https://www.edmsauce.com/2017/02/20/blackmill-songs/. Another article from a major EDM website: [11]https://edm.com/music-releases/blackmill-first-album-in-ten-years-home. He is the main subject here of a Billboard (a rather big name in music) article: [12]https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/john-edge-blackmill-emerald-city-premiere-7989272/. Another independent article from another major EDM site: [13]https://edmidentity.com/2021/12/27/blackmill-brings-us-home-with-new-album/. Finally, Relentless Beats, another huge player in the EDM world, has given him coverage while espousing his fundamental role in the melodic dubstep genre: [14]. There's more than plenty here for WP:GNG. 50.237.197.242 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sad affair in the form of a poorly written woefully incomplete article because the article should never have been created in the first place. Lack of notability on Wikipedia is not a judgement that someone isn't important or that an artist doesn't have listeners, it means precisely that we can't, are unable to, write reasonable encyclopedic content that amounts to something at least resembling an article. When someone thinks that we maybe can (and starts an article), but it turns out that we can't, instead of having a quasi-article that fails the expectations of our readers (like you), we delete, and that's what notability means, and is the purpose which GNG source criteria serve. I listen to a lot of electronic music myself (and the first thing I said when starting this discussion was This artist is not unknown.), but Wikipedia is encyclopedia world, not EDM world, and we need something to source information from, and that something can't be just anything, it needs to be reliable, so that readers, apart from having something to read, are also assured that what they read is reasonably authoritative. User generated content and self-published sources are not considered reliable. The sources which you mention which are already included in the article don't suffice to develop the article further, which comes from the fact that they lack in-depth coverage. The rest of the sources mentioned so far in the discussion are not reliable. Blackmill self-published his albums and other releases, and the coverage he gets is therefore also self-published and highly niche (where are at least reviews of his albums, in any music journalism outlet outside of blogs, Sputnik, and rateyourmusic?), that's just how it works in music.—Alalch E. 17:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several points of contention/discussion, respectfully: 1) The Billboard.com article is not a "self-published" source. The author Allison Stubblebine is one of their regular authors, and Billboard.com is a major, very reliable music source with a full editorial board (https://www.billboard.com/about-us/). 2) There is absolutely no proof at all that we cannot write reasonable encyclopedic content about this topic. It simply appears nobody has tried. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, it appears the article was only created on December 31, 2022! And you proposed for it's deletion the same day. Wow. It was barely a few hours old before you tried to delete it. Therefore, it has never even been given a chance to become an article. 3) I'm not sure I follow your logic that "Blackmill self-published his albums and other releases, and the coverage he gets is therefore also self-published". The separate sources independently covering his album are not self-published. Article #6 provided above from EDM.com is written by Nick Yopko. He is the associate editor of EDM.com and not affiliated in any way with Blackmill (https://edm.com/author/nick-yopko). 4) Finally, Blackmill meets multiple criteria for WP:WPMN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles). He satisfies criteria #1, 7, 10, and 11. 50.237.197.242 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2) I tried. That's why I'm the nominator here. I gave it a chance to become an article when doing WP:BEFORE. I searched the Wikipedia Library as well. I was aware of all the sources that have been mentioned so far, and that have been added to the article, I imagined how I could use them and concluded that a satisfactory article can not be written, seeing how the subject isn't notable. My work involves research and writing, I look at recent changes and see many borderline cases, have accumulated some experience dealing with them, and I can do this in well under an hour, let alone a day.
1&3) Your contentions on these points arise from your not correctly reading what I wrote I'm afraid. When I said in my last comment: The sources which you mention which are already included in the article ..., I was referring to these sources which you just mentioned in the comment which I am now replying to (I will call them sources A). The problem with sources A is that they lack in-depth coverage. I did not refer to sources A as self-published and highly niche, and I only used these attributes to describe The rest of the sources mentioned so far in the discussion (I will call those sources B). Yes Billboard.com is okay, and EDM is usable, as in not a source I would remove from the article, but is far from a good source because it generally publishes sponsored content and does not adhere to journalistic standards. They churn press releases and include some pseudo-review (usually vacuous, as is typical for such borderline music outlets) commentary in them which is always positive in tone. There is no real music criticism. But this isn't even the main point regarding Sources A -- the crucial point is that they do not even approach in-depth coverage.
4) Subject doesn't meet those criteria:
     #1: ... multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician ... -- Clearly not the case based on what we've discussed so far.
     #7: most prominent representatives of a notable style -- Which notable style? Which reliable source calls him the most prominent representative of any style?
     #10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable. -- Which notable work? Reliable source please.
     #11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. -- Simply not true and not present in any source. Regards—Alalch E. 11:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few things here: I feel like an article should be given more than a few hours to thrive before being nominated for deletion. I understand you may feel like you have scoured all internet sources, and are efficient at doing so, and were able to come to a conclusion that no decent article can possibly be developed and therefore it warrants deletion. However, a few of us found sources you were not able to; ie those cited above by Schminnte, Pelmeen10, and myself.
Secondly, to address criteria:
  1. 1) The Billboard and EDM.com articles, among many others, certainly qualify as reliable, non-self-published, independent sources and are non-trivial. So category #1 seems to be met. Unless I missed it, there is no evidence in this case that the coverage of Blackmill is sponsored by his camp.
  2. 7) Which notable style you ask? Take your pick: Melodic dubstep (as mentioned above. See Alexandra Myer's article in Relentlessbeats again. She's an independent author and one of their regulars, again with no relation to Blackmill). Or Chillstep. Another independent source (not listed before): [15]https://dancingastronaut.com/2019/12/blackmill-returns-with-melodic-dub-offering-in-hand/.
  3. 10) He's on the BBC Hustle Soundtrack. [16]https://bpb.opendns.com/a/bbchustle.weebly.com/commercially-available-songs.html. Series 8, Episode 6, to be specific.
  4. 11) Blackmill has his own Spotify station. [17]https://open.spotify.com/playlist/37i9dQZF1E4vxbqlFLMsTX. Not everybody gets that: It means he's achieved a certain distinction, and recognition for a certain type of sound, that Spotify recommends to listeners who want to hear other music and sounds like him. He was also heavily in play in Pandora stations throughout Europe and North America during his peak - ie early to mid 2010s.
50.237.197.242 (talk) 22:54, 13 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! 18:19, 15 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballet Melee[edit]

The Ballet Melee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it's technically verifiable as existing -- the notability test hinges on evidence of significance, such as notable film awards, documentable box office success, reviews by professional film critics in WP:GNG-worthy media, and on and so forth. But existence is the only notability claim being made here, and the footnotes are the film's own self-published production website, IMDb and a non-notable blog, absolutely none of which are reliable or notability-building sources.
As I can't read Bulgarian, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with Bulgarian language skills can actually find legitimate GNG-worthy media coverage to salvage the article with -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced considerably better than it is. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 8 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! 18:18, 15 January 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! 04:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LS Mark[edit]

LS Mark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. The most I can find is an interview done in a regional newspaper, with most other online information coming from unverfiable fan-collected material. Regardless of which policy we look at this through, I don't think the sparse sourcing supports retention. Whether assessed under WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER, the subject isn't receiving sufficient attention to reach the notability threshold. This was a disputed PROD by the article creator, Beargreen1 (talk · contribs) Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, ineligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:17, 15 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hooper-Hodson[edit]

Alex Hooper-Hodson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undersourced and insignificant. Sricsi (talk) 18:06, 15 January 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 deleted by UtherSRG per CSD criteria G5, as it was created by a banned or blocked user (Mostly shoaib) in violation of their ban or block. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 13:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reetu Sattar[edit]

Reetu Sattar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable & promotional article. I am unable to see/find any significant covarage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

All of sources are either passing mentions, interview or primary. Didn't won any major/notable award. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:42, 15 January 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Fort Apache[edit]

This Is Fort Apache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one is admittedly a close call but I don't think the album meets the requirements at WP:SIGCOV for multiple reliable sources that say informative things. The album does have an AllMusic review (already cited) which usually helps for notability around here, but it is brief and does little beyond listing some of the tracks within. I also found a very brief release announcement that mistakenly calls itself a review ([19]), and one blog review ([20]), but that's all. It's a quickie compilation that is now only present in the usual retail listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caro7200, please provide links instead of just a list of titles. You are correct about Washington Post where there is indeed a review at: ([21]), which I missed the first time. For Billboard, I found the following reprint in Google Books: [22], but that one really strikes me as a basic release announcement rather than a review. I can't find any of the others that you listed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Billboard review, under Album Reviews, is on page 58 of the 1/21/95 issue, for one example. I work with physical bound journals; you may try to use a database to find things... Caro7200 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you may try to add more info on things that you say exist, such as "Interview, Nov. 17, 1995, p. 136". I just saw Bigfoot but that doesn't mean you have to believe it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my own search, I didn't find any of what Caro listed above, but I did find sources for a Grammy nomination [23][24] plus this blurb and this review from Cash Box. Based on what I've seen, I'm also leaning keep but would not oppose a merger. QuietHere (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it matters (it may not) the Grammy nomination is for the art director thanks to the CD's elaborate packaging. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is true and perhaps I should've clarified that myself as I don't know how much of an effect it has. I wouldn't expect much given it's still a notable award and the nomination lists the album specifically, but I guess I could understand an argument given it's for the packaging and not the music itself. QuietHere (talk) 21:29, 15 January 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! 16:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity FinEx[edit]

Clarity FinEx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's not clear what this organization does or even that it exists. The sources cited in the article do not mention the company and Google searches only bring up user-generated content like Facebook, Google Maps and IMDB. This is either a hoax or an utterly non-notable company - it's probably eligible for A7/G11, but I'm going through AfD so it will be eligible for G4 if recreated in the future. Spicy (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Thriller 25. Liz Read! Talk! 14:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller 25: Limited Japanese Single Collection[edit]

Thriller 25: Limited Japanese Single Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOPAGE. This is an article about a limited edition of an album reissue (Thriller 25) of another album (Thriller (album)) — not deserving of its own page. Consists of little more than a track list and summary of contents. This release is of little notability and can be summarised in a single sentence in the main Thriller 25 article. Popcornfud (talk) 14:55, 15 January 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 WP:SNOW delete. SoWhy 10:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Marchand[edit]

Gregory Marchand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted 5 other times under the names Greg J. Marchand Greg Marchand. A 2018 deletion discussion here was closed as delete and salt. It was originally created by a family of socks involved in undisclosed paid promotional editing. The most recent creator of the article also appears to be a member of that group of socks.

Evidence for this includes the fact that the names of references and their formating in the version by the User:GuinnessFreak and User:Nilanda2019 accounts are the same.

The version created by User:GuinnessFreak in 2018 begins with refs

2018 version
<ref name=longman>((cite news|last1=Longman|first1=Molly|title=Mesa Doctor Breaks World Record for Largest Tumor Removal and It's Kind of Gross|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mesa-doctor-greg-marchand-tumor-removal-world-record-9558660|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times|date=August 4, 2017))</ref><ref name=brown>((cite news|last1=Brown|first1=David|title=EV doctor sets world record for removal of tumor|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/our_community/ev-doctor-sets-world-record-for-removal-of-tumor/article_27ca002e-a231-11e7-8dc5-377a1c4be7f1.html|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=East Valley Tribune|date=9 September 2017))</ref><ref name=cline>((cite news|last1=Cline|first1=Kathy|title=Mesa doctor sets world record in tumor-removal surgery|url=http://ktar.com/story/1671808/mesa-doctor-sets-world-record-in-tumor-removal-surgery/|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=KTAR News|date=7 July 2017))</ref>...<ref name=stern>((cite news|last1=Stern|first1=Ray|title=Local Docs Enter Record Books With Largest Uterus Ever Removed|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/local-docs-enter-record-books-with-largest-uterus-ever-removed-6635325|accessdate=10 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times))</ref><ref name=academy>((cite web|title=Laparoscopic Ovarian Cancer Staging Surgery on the Largest Tumor: Arizona doctors set world record (VIDEO)|url=https://www.worldrecordacademy.com/medical/laparoscopic_ovarian_cancer_staging_surgery_on_the_largest_tumor_Arizona_doctors_set_world_record_217017.html|website=World Record Academy |date=7 January 2017|accessdate=11 April 2018))</ref><ref>((cite news|last1=Simpson|first1=Victoria|title=Arizona Surgeon Removes Enormous Cancer Tumor Through a Cut the Size of a Dime, Setting a New World Record|url=https://www.ratemds.com/blog/arizona-surgeon-removes-worlds-largest-cancerous-tumor-cut-size-dime-setting-world-record/|accessdate=12 April 2018|agency=RateMDs.Com|date=13 August 2017))</ref>

And the newest version in 2020 by User:Nilanda2019 began with refs

2020 version
<ref name=longman>((cite news|last1=Longman|first1=Molly|title=Mesa Doctor Breaks World Record for Largest Tumor Removal and It's Kind of Gross|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mesa-doctor-greg-marchand-tumor-removal-world-record-9558660|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times|date=August 4, 2017))</ref><ref name=brown>((cite news|last1=Brown|first1=David|title=EV doctor sets world record for removal of tumor|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/our_community/ev-doctor-sets-world-record-for-removal-of-tumor/article_27ca002e-a231-11e7-8dc5-377a1c4be7f1.html|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=East Valley Tribune|date=9 September 2017))</ref><ref name=cline>((cite news|last1=Cline|first1=Kathy|title=Mesa doctor sets world record in tumor-removal surgery|url=http://ktar.com/story/1671808/mesa-doctor-sets-world-record-in-tumor-removal-surgery/|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=KTAR News|date=7 July 2017))</ref>... <ref name=stern>((cite news|last1=Stern|first1=Ray|title=Local Docs Enter Record Books With Largest Uterus Ever Removed|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/local-docs-enter-record-books-with-largest-uterus-ever-removed-6635325|accessdate=10 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times))</ref>...<ref name=academy>((cite web|title=Laparoscopic Ovarian Cancer Staging Surgery on the Largest Tumor: Arizona doctors set world record (VIDEO)|url=https://www.worldrecordacademy.com/medical/laparoscopic_ovarian_cancer_staging_surgery_on_the_largest_tumor_Arizona_doctors_set_world_record_217017.html|website=World Record Academy |date=7 January 2017|accessdate=11 April 2018))</ref><ref>((cite news|last1=Simpson|first1=Victoria|title=Arizona Surgeon Removes Enormous Cancer Tumor Through a Cut the Size of a Dime, Setting a New World Record|url=https://www.ratemds.com/blog/arizona-surgeon-removes-worlds-largest-cancerous-tumor-cut-size-dime-setting-world-record/|accessdate=12 April 2018|agency=RateMDs.Com|date=13 August 2017))</ref>

The User:Nilanda2019 account was also involved in other promotionally article creating before it was abandoned as is the style of this group of socks to keep their accounts from being connected one to the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a July 2019 deletion discussion of the article name Greg Marchand (surgeon).[25] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 16 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Nagelkerke[edit]

Nico Nagelkerke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article (a stub) was started four years ago but since then no work has been done on it. I have started a discussion of the academic notability of this researcher on its talk page, and again, here. Richard Gill (talk) 13:26, 15 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're a goose mate for deleting some genuine good accurate content that only expanded Wikipedia's library of information on the topic of the A-League. Matt jobe watson (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast Mariners FC–Sydney FC rivalry[edit]

Central Coast Mariners FC–Sydney FC rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. While these two teams play each other, there is simply not enough in-depth coverage about any rivalry between the two. Onel5969 TT me 11:19, 15 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arihant TV[edit]

Arihant TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not notable. It doesn't have any references or sources. Any notable references can't be found on the Internet. Doraemon Lover 12 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus fails GNG. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:32, 15 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Oresti[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Luke Oresti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Word-for-word copy & paste from Draft:Luke Oresti after an initial move was reverted by User:Simione001. Worth noting that the article was draftified following clear consensus at the previous Oresti AfD. All participants agreed that the subject was a WP:TOOSOON case. This still applies, in my view. Best source I can find is being listed as an unused sub in The Football Sack.

I've done a WP:BEFORE search and can't find any coverage of him from independent sources since the previous discussion, therefore I suggest deleting the mainspace copy and retaining the draftspace version, which contains all of the article history. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he has already scored and played at professional level. He is notable & has many articles from independent sources. Nzs9 (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Playing at professional level is not relevant in terms of notability. Please can you point me to examples of significant coverage in independent sources as you have not used any such references in the article and I was unable to find any when doing my own searches? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not that it really matters in terms of notability but he has not actually played in any professional matches. The two matches he played in the cup were against semi-pro clubs. Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG, which I forgot to cite in my initial deletion comment. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete as this was created as a "copy and paste move" from Draft:Luke Oresti, which still exists in draftspace. Frank Anchor 20:15, 20 January 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 Mogilev#Economy. Any content to be merged can be found in the page history. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mogilev Free Enterprise Zone[edit]

Mogilev Free Enterprise Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by a user named "FEZ MOGILEV" which means the username almost matches the name of the article. It is entirely unreferenced. While there are brief, trivial mentions in several books none of these mentions constitute significant coverage that would warrant a standalone article per WP:GEO. Most media coverage is regarding other economic zones, rather than this one. There is an article on special economic zones, and there is simply no need for a stand alone article on individual zones. The article has been tagged for notability for 13 years yet only 400 bites of expansion have been made, and this is pretty much only other editors tagging the article. I cannot locate any significant coverage nor find any appropriate alternatives to deletion, hence I am nominating at AFD. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:36, 15 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hughes (politician)[edit]

Dave Hughes (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable failed political candidate; does not pass WP:NPOL. A WP:BEFORE search returned only trivial and WP:ROUTINE election news, with no significant coverage, indicating the subject fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Esparza (footballer)[edit]

Carlos Esparza (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 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 Viktor Axelsen. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Axelsen career statistics[edit]

Viktor Axelsen career statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the important information has been included in the main article "Viktor Axelsen". So, do not need to separate main article with player career statistics. See also: Talk:Wang Yihan#Merger proposal. Thank you Stvbastian (talk) 07:08, 15 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ezequiel Echeverría[edit]

Ezequiel Echeverría (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 21:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the level of competition matters anymore, if he gets coverage at regional football league coverage then he could still pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, if a student athlete receives significant coverage in reliable sources, an article about them would meet our guidelines - the obvious problem here is not the level Echeverría manages at, but the clear lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 1, as the nominator is not even arguing for deletion. Merging is not a type of deletion and merges should be proposed on article talk, not at AFD. (This was eligible for soft deletion, which would have made the nominator's proposed merge impossible). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Revolution Network[edit]

Syrian Revolution Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability. Most of its content talks about its founder Fida al-Sayed and what he did in the first months of the protests in Syria. Can be merged into his article or the Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war. The page itself is no longer active on facebook. Sakiv (talk) 04:30, 15 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Kavur[edit]

Fuad Kavur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet biographical «creative professionals» notability requirements. Article appears to be created and updated by subject. KejwfnNKR (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 1 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! 05:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not the best sourced article (or even adequately sourced) but I don't see a strong argument here, or any support, for deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact established that the subject is a named producer on the notable film mentioned is sourced. The subject's name the New York Times as the producer of the film mentioned in the article: <<https://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/04/movies/film-peter-ustinov-in-memed-my-hawk.html>>. The subject's name is all that is mentioned. This does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Google Books results are all to indexes which confirm the fact. The book by the subject mentioned on the page appears self published, with no external references, and is non-notable. The opera mentioned, sourced in the article from <<http://www.jstor.org/stable/957306>> is a non-notable student production at University of London.
The article is currently self promotional. I would happy improve the article, but there are not adequate sources to support notability of the subject. KejwfnNKR (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khelna Bari[edit]

Khelna Bari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Web series doesn't seem to meet WP:NMEDIA - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE episode reviews and viewership statistics. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Nominators' view. Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nilpriyo, which sources do you think are non-routine and support that WP:GNG is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example here is Biswajit Ghosh who is the main lead hero in this series. How is his character in the series is given in the source [1]. Besides the show has Last week charted in Top 4 BARC Viewership of TRP [2] clearly passes WP:NTV with sufficient WP:GNG. Nilpriyo (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Biswajit Ghosh to play a successful businessman in 'Khelna Bari'". The Times of India.
  2. ^ "প্রকাশ্যে বছরের শেষ টিআরপি! একাধিক মেগার স্কোরে রদবদল, বেঙ্গল টপার কে?". Aaj Tak বাংলা.

Note to closer: Up to know, all keep votes are from the same editor. The Banner talk 21:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FYI, editors do not all have to agree on deletion for there to be a consensus to delete an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 8 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! 03:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drumchannel.com[edit]

Drumchannel.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable business/website where the single award from DRUM! isn't enough to prove notability (nor is notability inherited from its freelance instructors). Why? I Ask (talk) 00:51, 8 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! 02:46, 15 January 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! 03:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyard Indian Settlement[edit]

Vinyard Indian Settlement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not convinced that this particular unrecognized tribe meets, for Wikipedia purposes the definition of notability. A Google search does not meet GNG. Google Scholar reveals three newspaper articles (one of which is the SIU student newspaper) that incidentally mention the settlement. The newspaper articles I could find tend to cover the one-off controversy of their efforts at state recognition. Mpen320 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Thank you for the edits. It's a much better article. I am now lukewarm on deleting vs my prior warm.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I’ll take it. They are definitely low priority, but they do keep popping up in the news and are still invited to present publicly even after being denied state recognition. Yuchitown (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Graaff[edit]

Arthur Graaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is an an autobiography as admitted by the subject [44]. It has repeatedly been deleted at the Dutch Wikipedia and the subject is banned there for self promotion and for falsifying sources. Another editor has detailed on the article talk page that some of the sources here are, again, fabricated and that some facts are falsified. This article is not salvageable. It should be deleted as WP:TNT and started from scratch by someone neutral who is not the article subject. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not an autobiography but a translation of the old Dutch article the existed for over six years, and has been edited by and contributed to by some three dozen Wikipedians. It now features some 60 refs. It is clear that most of the content is therefore proven and sourceable.
The main accuser is a Dutchman who has been stalking Graaff for over 2.5 years, and here uses aliases and false names, such as 'John A Drummond' or simply the IPs 86.95.90.103, or 84.86.115.84 practically all edits are negative, and with unfounded accusations. The first IP edited the article 48 times over the last two weeks, most of which was reverted, and the man behind this IP has written over 70 very negative Dutch articles on Graaff, which led to a formal criminal complaint for libel and slander against this accuser.
Nevertheless, the article seems a bit long. I think about half would be fine.
Webnetprof (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you referring to yourself in the third person? You have already stated that you are Graaff. And no, Dutch-language Wikipedia article content (whether subsequently deleted or not) is not a reliable source, as far as this Wikipedia is concerned, so who may have contributed to the article there is of absolutely no concern to this discussion. The article is, per English-Wikipedia standards, poorly sourced where it is sourced at all, unambiguously promotional, and full of trivia that only the subject would know about. Or care about. That is what matters. Not some spat you've had elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you've known Graaff's name for a very long time, given the number of promotional edits to the Graaff biography made by anonymous Dutch IPs. And of course, the ongoing unsuccessful attempts by Graaff to restore his biography to the Dutch-language Wikipedia. Which you seem to have participated in. [45] Read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User 86.82-98.200 = Webnetprof = Arthur Graaff.
See: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Bijdragen/86.82.98.200
And of course the editing by 86.82-98.200 on Wikipedia pages in English.
The "Ati Schermel" mentioned on the NL-Wikipedia was a woman with whom the subject allegedly had an affair - according to the diverse IP addresses that can be linked to the subject. John A. Drummond (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't 'categorise' people based on contributors opinions. And we try to keep external disputes out of these discussions - the outcome needs to be determined according to Wikipedia policies (e.g. on notability, and on the proper use of published sources etc) only. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely why I do not suggest creating a new article. It's begging for trouble. gidonb (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Education Budget of Pakistan[edit]

Education Budget of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is just a poorly written essay. Wikipedia is not an opinion-hosting website, so this page should be deleted. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like an essay, not an encyclopedic article, and doesn't even have a lead. MasterMatt12💬 ● Contributions 01:54, 15 January 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.
More