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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Somali Sports Federation[edit]

Electronic Somali Sports Federation (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)

Nowhere near significant coverage to meet N:ORG. Creator will not accept draft space, so we're here. Star Mississippi 23:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Sports, and Somalia. Star Mississippi 23:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Disputed Draftification. Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the custom WP:VG/RS search engine, which looks through all online sources considered reliable, I get zero results. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NORG / WP:GNG without better sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:02, 13 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. Nomination withdrawn. While they arguably may not satisfy WP:NORG (in terms of WP:AUD), User:Jweiss11 has provided sources that show enough notability to meet WP:GNG; I said I'd withdraw the nomination for WP:BLAR if that was provided, and it has been. Since nobody else has commented anything other than a "Keep" rationale, I am withdrawing this. (non-admin closure) Aoidh (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Guardians[edit]

Orlando Guardians (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)

Per WP:BLAR, the article is being brought here since it should be redirected to XFL (2020)#Teams. The article was copy-pasted from a draft to bypass the AfC process, but it is not ready for mainspace because the article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG (WP:NTEAM directs us to WP:GNG; there is no presumed notability for the team simply having played games). Source assessment tables have been provided at Talk:Orlando Guardians#Notability concern; of the 11 sources in the article and the 20 provided on the talk page, only 1 constitutes significant coverage in an independent third-party source, the rest is trivial or non-independent routine coverage. Notability must be demonstrated, and the sources in the article show plenty of notability for the XFL as a whole, but none for this team specifically. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing that would demonstrate notability. ESPN for example only has trivial coverage and press releases. There's some routine local coverage but per WP:AUD is not sufficient. It may be an issue of WP:TOOSOON but it's certainly not ready for a standalone article at this time. Aoidh (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Florida, New Jersey, and New York. Aoidh (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and quite frankly not even worth discussing, as the original poster has made several blatant false claims about the sources. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example? You've written a significant amount of the article so I can see why you'd want to keep it (discounting a blocked sockpuppet you are its primary author), but you can't say "several blatant false claims" without at least an example. - Aoidh (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources just added here and here are yet more examples of the trivial sources that can be found, but they are about former players and only make passing mentions of the team; per WP:NTEAM coverage of a (former) player doesn't contribute to notability of the team. - Aoidh (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The most glaring is the Middletown Press article, which discusses the 2020 Guardians' season in depth, far beyond what would be considered routine. I have also added a second source discussing the New York Guardians' quarterback situation from well outside the NYC metro area, a newspaper in Harrisburg. That is two reliable, independent, non-routine sources, which meets the GNG threshold. Several of the other sources cited are from independent newspapers, going beyond what I (and probably most Wikipedia editors) would consider "routine." "Routine" coverage is birth announcements, obituaries, individual entries on a scoreboard—items far more trivial than the coverage that the Orlando Sentinel and New York Post articles have provided. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're not referring to this interview with and about the coach since interviews aren't independent, so would you mind linking what article you're referring to? As I said above the quarterback article is about a player and makes only a passing mention of the team, that's not significant coverage. I'm interested in what Middletown Press article you're referring to, but this is in no way significant coverage of the (at the time) New York Guardians. - Aoidh (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And there it is. That's the blatant falsehood I'm talking about. Your standard for establishing something beyond routine/trivial is beyond what could realistically be achieved for any entity. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There what is? Is this your significant coverage? Information about some players and a passing mention that one had a touchdown to give the Guardians a 14-6 lead over the Los Angeles Wildcats entering halftime is significant coverage of the team? That is in no way significant coverage and I was worried I shouldn't have nominated this for deletion but if even the article's authors can't come up with better than this, it's very clearly not notable. - Aoidh (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In my opinion, this is a clearly notable topic. The team's already played a season of professional football in the XFL (2020), is going to be playing a second next month, and has received plenty of coverage. In addition to all the sources on the talk (and I disagree with some of those "assessments"), other sources I've found include: [1] [2] (a listing of Guardians articles) [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] etc etc. XFL teams are notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What notability guideline says that The team's already played a season of professional football in the XFL (2020) is something that makes it notable? Throwing another huge list at the wall to see what sticks only highlights the lack of notability of the subject. This is about a game and has only trivial information about the team. Rather than breaking down why each of those is insufficient (yet again) I'll ask again, what are the WP:THREE best sources? I certainly hope that isn't one of them. We don't need more "etc etc" and quantity we need quality in the sources. XFL teams are notable per what? - Aoidh (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"XFL teams are notable" – per what? – per having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, what are the WP:THREE sources for that? Where is this WP:SIGCOV? Out of the now 40+ sources that have been thrown together there's 1 that meets that definition. I'm only asking for two sources to meet the bare minimum of what is required of Wikipedia articles, I don't think that's unreasonable. Other than this, what are the two best sources for this article? I will happily speedy close this discussion if the bare minimum can be shown here, that's all I'm asking for. There's no doubt that there's a lot of WP:TRIVIAL sources, but quantity of sources is not an indicator of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're engaging in pooh-poohing. Watch it. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of "dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration" is not only inaccurate since I very clearly gone to great lengths to examine and consider the points made, but that accusation is also serious projecting. I'm asking for sources, not for comments like that. Let's focus on the content. - Aoidh (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable subject with an abundance of significant converage in independent sources as demonstrated in article and by J. Myrle Fuller and BeanieFan1 1here. This is frankly a silly nomination highlighted by the absurd argument that an independent news coverage magically becomes not independent if it includes quotes from interviews with people related to the subject. Nomination should be withdrawn. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said, I said quotes in the article aren't independent, not that it invalidates the entire source as non-independent. But when the only relevant part of the source is quotes from the coach of the team, there's no independent coverage within that quote; it's from the team itself. Given that the list of sources is made up of things like this I have to ask, which sources exactly are providing the significant coverage? I have no problem withdrawing this nomination but when asked for examples, there's nothing but vague assertions of notability and lists of trivial mentions. If this nom is so "silly" why is this presented as significant coverage? That is silly. If it's so clearly notable it should be a simple thing to show where the coverage is rather than trying to bury it in a mountain of trivial mentions. - Aoidh (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)s[reply]

Aoidh, the Guardians are mentioned outside of the Gilbride's quotes in The Middletown Press article. But even if they weren't, for the purposes of establishing notability, if a reliable source chooses to interview Kevin Gilbride about the the Guardians, and then publishes Gilbride's quotes about the Guardians, that demonstrates that the notability of the subject, even if Gilbride's comments contain falsehoods. You're wasting everyone's time arguing against this rolling snowball. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping with such "clear" notability someone could provide significant coverage, but unfortunately that has not materialized. I will not be withdrawing this AfD because the sources purported to show notability do nothing of the sort. Interviews like that do not contribute to notability. The issue isn't "falsehoods" it's independence from the subject. The mentions of the team in this source outside of the quotes are trivial, it's a passing mention in the beginning of a game they played in, and a passing mention that "players were finishing their after-practice meetings" something so basic and routine you can't do anything with. As for the snowball, a couple of the article's creators asserting notability isn't a snowball, especially when the keep arguments are inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Notability must be shown, and throwing everything one can Google at the wall to see what sticks does not show notability. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for WP:THREE but there's not even two. It wasn't my intention to respond to every comment but misrepresenting what I said needed to be addressed. I'm still happy to withdraw this nomination if the very basic standard of WP:GNG can be demonstrated, but what's been discussed so far falls short of even that, and stuffing as many links as one can into a discussion does not change that. The links do show notability for the XFL, and this is a reasonable target to redirect this page to until notability can be established at some point, but this article isn't there yet. Again, I'm more than happy to withdraw this if the bare minimum can be shown, but a lone interview isn't it. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about these sources: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116002894/the-orlando-sentinel/ and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116002927/the-courier-news/ https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116003192/the-journal-news/? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I nominated this in good faith because I was specifically asked to bring this to AfD for discussion, and that I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. ALso, thank you very much for looking for those sources. Let me look over them after I attend to my kids for a minute. - Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: thanks. I wish it didn't take the fourth editor in a deletion discussion to find sources like that (I'm including myself, I looked) but I'm true to my word; I asked for the bare minimum to meet WP:GNG and that surpasses what I asked for. Closing now. - Aoidh (talk) 02:10, 8 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!} 03:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Permak[edit]

Permak (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)

Cites do not show it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NCORP. Owning one single property that got into one news article is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NCORP. It gets a few hits in the Turkish business press, but the articles are really about the hotels the company owns, not about the company itself. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:40, 11 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) 17:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven City Diner[edit]

Eleven City Diner (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)

Advertisement for non-notable restaurant. The NPR source is just an advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I excluded sources from Chicago (Tribune, etc), in an attempt to show notability. Manny's Deli, which is notable, has many Chicago area sources and yet hasn't been nominated for deletion. If I add these sources I excluded, would that help make the notability case (sticking to top local publications). Eleven City Diner and Kaufman's (as well as Steingolds - but I didn't add an article for that one) have had a number of references in articles from publications from outside the Chicago area, and/or intended for a national audience.

I acknowledge that these other delis are not as notable as Mannys. But I attempt to make the case that they pass the notability test.

For example, if these articles are deleted, why is Kenny & Zuke's Delicatessen still not deleted. It has articles of similar quality and they are more of a local area nature than what I used here.

I have no connection to these businesses other than I live in the same city / metro area. Sblument (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added additional content and sources Sblument (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sblument: No reason to not include Chicagoland sources, of course having non-local sources can help show notability but local sources can often provide more detailed information. Skynxnex (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 24 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!} 06:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given the added sources and the continued coverage in sources, incl the Chicago area not included yet such as:

"Diner elevates usual soup-and-sandwich. By: Bianchi, Laura, Crain's Chicago Business, 01496956, 6/12/2006, Vol. 29, Issue 24": Open just a few months, Eleven City Diner already feels like an old-timer in the South Loop. ebsco.

How to Throw a Perfect Summer Picnic Never before have so many restaurants offered food to go. Here, a guide to what to pick up and what to pack it in, plus two easy recipes for dining al fresco. By Marian Bull PRINT EDITIONHow to; Putting On a Perfect Summer Picnic|July 25, 2021, Page ST3 (NYT)

A significant (more than ten paragraphs) feature in "Rewriting the rules. By: JENNINGS, LISA, Nation's Restaurant News, 00280518, 10/6/2014, Vol. 48, Issue 19" ebsco

Skynxnex (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added all these references plus a few more Sblument (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The new sources added passes GNG.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 02:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. Restaurants are a difficult topic because there's an entire industry build up around reviewing restaurants, from "influencers" to travel books, TV and Michelin stars which begs the question, how do we evaluate notability of restaurants. There is the section WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS at NCORP which provides some pointers such as discounting brief and routine reviews (including Zagat), etc, but it still falls short of resolving many of the issues surrounding restaurant notability in general. There were a few attempts in the past (e,g, WP:REST) to write guidelines specifically for restaurants but none were adopted. So we're left with NCORP and we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability so we need 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. Here's my take on the sources against NCORP guidelines:
  • Nation's Restaurant News article is based on an interview with the owner so all the information has been provided by the owner/company. This fails ORGIND as there's no "Independent Content"
  • The Chicago Tribune is a mere two sentence mention about the deli in The Loop opening. It fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Chicago Business article is a run-of-the-mill review consisting of 9 sentences briefly describing the decor and the food. It is not significant and contains no in-depth information about the restaurant. Fails CORPDEPTH
  • The Jewish Times article is a mere single instance mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH
  • The Nosher article is also a single sentence mention with not in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This in a magazine from the University of Washington is also a mere single sentence mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH
  • There's a bunch of sources from eater.com - this is a puff piece written before the restaurant opened a location in LA and relies entirely on information provided by the owner/company and the journalist did not add sufficient "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. This next one is a "hidden history of root beer floats in Chicago" which includes profiles of restaurants that continue to sell beer floats. The topic company has a paragraph but again, all the information is provided by the owner/company, fails ORGIND. This next is a mention consisting of two sentences, fails CORPDEPTH. Finally, this announces the closure of the Lincoln Park location and is based on a announcement by the company on Facebook. It is not significant and there is insufficient detail to meet CORPDEPTH.
  • This from npr.org is a comedic description of eating a sandwich from the topic company. It contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from food network is a recipe, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from NYTimes magazine has a couple of sentences mentioning the diner with no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH

None of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

would the following articles pass this same test

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_%26_Zuke%27s_Delicatessen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kornblatt%27s_Delicatessen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent%27s_Deli

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loeb%27s_NY_Deli Sblument (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some sort of project or way for us in the Wiki community to solve this problem - to come up with a general notability guideline for restaurants, I am willing to volunteer some time/effort. I understand the risks involved in not wanting Wiki to be a place to promote restaurants. But although there may not be an easy consensus rubric that will satisfy every case, perhaps Wikipedia could benefit from some kind of "floor" guidelines. I also bet there are many articles of restaurants that may or may not meet current notability standards.

Also, a confounding factor is that wiki has virtually unlimited space, so the standard should not be so harsh as it would be in a space limited encyclopedia. ~~ Sblument (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Just be aware of WP:WHATABOUTX at AfD. If you believe there are topics here that aren't notable, feel free to nominate them for deletion. On the other hand, in my experience, there are editors who, at a fundamental level, don't like the idea of carving out different guidelines for different topics. For me, I've encountered a number of topic areas where the project might benefit from specific guidelines and Restaurants are one of them. Although to be fair from what I've seen of available sources, this Diner still would still fail the guidelines I have in mind. We would need a lot more than common or garden restaurant reviews and announcements of opening and closing branches. For example, if the restaurant was associated with a notable chef or if the restaurant won a prestigious annual award (as opposed to "Restaurant of the Week!) or awarded something from Michelin, etc. If you do decide to request/campaign for restaurant-specific guidelines, please ping me as I would also like to participate. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks I'll look into this more and decide if I want to request/campaign as you suggest. One thing in particular with Jewish delis - there could be an idea that these delis are notable for the Jewish community, whereas the most notable Jewish delis (in Chicago, Manny's, in New York, Katz's) that feel notable in general. Michelin doesn't give stars to delis of course, and I would guess that most Michelin 1 star restaurants (even those with notable chefs) do not have a wiki article. For example in Chicago, Beverly Kim has an article as a notable chef, but her restaurants don't, even Parachute which has had many years of 1 Michelin star. Sblument (talk) Sblument (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did some research and think there may or may not be a need for a notability guideline for restaurants. It looks like wikiproject food and drink would be a good place, maybe for an essay? I would be willing to write one that talks about notability for restaurants and bars. Sblument (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just be aware that if there aren't any specific guidelines for Restaurants, they'll continue to fall under NCORP but Food and Drink is the best place to start a discussion for sure. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the references are passing mentions that basically function as advertisements for the establishment. The one lengthy one (Nation's, above) describes the restaurant and its offerings, which is rather like doing an article on a hardware store and saying: "It has nails, light bulbs, and a great variety of drill bits at a good price." Just saying that it is a restaurant and it serves food is rather the antithesis of notability. Also, I agree with HighKing that some better guidance for restaurants is needed for the exact reasons that they provide. Lamona (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per HighKing fails WP:GNG ,Most of the references are passing mentions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No WP:SIGCOV as refs are simple mentions. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:44, 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 Scarling. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey Lime[edit]

Rickey Lime (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:MUSICBIO; member of one notable band but does not appear to be independently notable. MIDI (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect into Scarling, her most notable collaboration. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what can be reliably referenced to Scarling as not enough coverage for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:00, 14 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. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat[edit]

2015–16 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat (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, season of a possibly non-professional league. Avilich (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Avilich (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:54, 8 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. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat[edit]

2016–17 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat (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, season of a possibly non-professional league. Avilich (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Avilich (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:54, 8 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. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat[edit]

2017–18 Liga Bolasepak Rakyat (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, season of a possibly non-professional league. Avilich (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Avilich (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:54, 8 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. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Liga Futsal Kebangsaan (Wanita)[edit]

2017 Liga Futsal Kebangsaan (Wanita) (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)

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Liga Futsal Kebangsaan. Avilich (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Avilich (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there doesn't seem to be a great deal of coverage about this futsal season Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 13 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. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subang United[edit]

Subang United (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 semipro club, sourced to Facebook only. Avilich (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Avilich (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:54, 8 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!} 04:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Hill (American football)[edit]

Bert Hill (American football) (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)

While accomplished, not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Commonness of the name makes it hard to search, but I did find some SIGCOV. E.g. this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have time for any in-depth searches now, but the first result when I took a brief look was this from the "USA Strength and Conditioning Coaches Hall of Fame" which appears to be sigcov. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Onel, thanks for giving advice for the article. While the article is not complete, my last edits were made to highlight the importance of the athletic training in the longterm perspective of the Detroit Lions. Due to its nature, research in this field is not trivial and my personal resources are at a low right now. Further SIGCOV can and should be integrated in the article in the future. Dopeious (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• comment generally assistant coaches aren't considered notable unless there is a good amount of coverage. There seems to be some here to at least consider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In general, strength and conditioning coaches (and position coaches, coordinators excluded) don't get all that much media coverage by virtue of their job. He's been active for a while, so it's quite possible that he got local/regional coverage in newspapers about the teams. That being said, he is in the Strength and Conditioning Coaches Hall of Fame, so he might pass WP:ANYBIO#1 except that I'm not sure how relevant/organized/legitimate the organization actually is. I'll have to take a deeper look. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In terms of media coverage, I was able to find

  • About two paragraphs dedicated to Hill in Sports Illustrated;
  • About three paragraphs dedicated to Hill in the Amarillo Globe-News;
  • Coverage of his work for the Lions in the Detroit Free Press;
  • Coverage of his hiring by the Aggies from Associated Press;

  I'm not quite sure that this is SIGCOV, but if the Hall of Fame honor is from a legit org (The Tennessean seems to give it weight in an obit) and is reliable (it's written by a professional historian), then I'd think that there's just enough coverage to keep the page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (weak) Keep. I had neglected to look at the sources presented by Cbl62 when commenting above. When taking those into consideration alongside the unique sources I listed (the one from DFP was a duplicate), I think there's WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent RS. He also appears to pass WP:ANYBIO#1 owing to his hall of fame induction. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Hill seems to be just notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Inclusion in the US Strength and Conditioning Hall of Fame provides WP:IMPACT and other sources also contribute to WP:GNG. I wouldn't use this as precedent to include "every" assistant coach, but it looks like there's good reason to include this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to have enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 12 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sakkai Eightraid[edit]

Sakkai Eightraid (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)

Unreleased (since 2018). Lack of notability. Alex Spade (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, mainly the "significant coverage" criterion, and arguably whether any of the sources are "independent of the subject." All the materials I could find appear to be repurposed press releases on ANN, and one article on Crunchyroll's news feed with the same information. Merely because it exists does not confer notability, per se. Given the lack of reporting on the show beyond its announcement and a single cast update, I think this fails several benchmarks for keeping. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lord Roem. Also sort of WP:CRYSTAL, in particular Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. — Jumbo T (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Delete I agree that this anime currently fails WP:GNG. However, creating drafts for upcoming media is a common practice, so I don't see why that is not acceptable in this case too. Link20XX (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete per Jumpytoo below. Link20XX (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to this tweet, it did air on a streaming app on February 2, 2019. I couldn't find any coverage though (I couldn't find any news outlet that even bothered to cover the release), and the fact no one bothered to update the wiki article for 3 years says something... Jumpytoo Talk 22:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not an unproduced project. One episode was released online, the project was ended, and the episode was taken offline again without any evidence of significant coverage. (The online streaming service was associated with Bandai Namco, but it has ended as well, and it doesn't have a page here either.) Dekimasuよ! 03:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks significant coverage. Fulmard (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:04, 13 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 Timber Timbre#Albums. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Shakes[edit]

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

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

Only source on page is the band's own website, found no other coverage beyond a few passing mentions and a couple brief but not-very-promising selections. Redirect to Timber_Timbre#Albums. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medicinals. QuietHere (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. QuietHere (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Jfire (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Like Medicinals, this is an early album that preceded the band's big breakthrough in 2009 with self-titled album #3 — but unlike Medicinals, in this case I failed to find the improved sourcing needed to salvage it. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Timber_Timbre#Albums per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:05, 13 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. Feel free to start an RM if there's a desire to discuss the title further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinals[edit]

Medicinals (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 contains one review from a website I've never heard of. Whether that site is reliable or not, I couldn't tell you, but I can say that I didn't find any other reliable coverage on this album in my search. Redirect to Timber_Timbre#Albums. QuietHere (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. QuietHere (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedar Shakes. QuietHere (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Album did not chart and I found no RS reviews, only passing mentions in the context of the band. Regarding the existing source, obscuresound.com is a blog, so WP:SPS applies. Jfire (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per the sourcing found by Bearcat. (In my defense, the Exclaim! review does not appear on the first page of search results for me, and the coverage in Ontario papers is not indexed by Wikipedia Library.) Jfire (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'll grant that this is the album before this band really broke through in a big way, so there hasn't been as much written about it as there has been about the albums that came after it, but it was not at all difficult to find more sourcing for it than the nomination suggests — it's already up to four footnotes now, all from reliable sources. (One of which, further, was easily found in the first page of a simple Google search, even if the others required a bit more effort to locate.) I will grant that 10 to 15 years ago, Wikipedia's notability standard for albums was "any album recorded by a notable band is 'inherently' notable regardless of sourcing issues", and has since wisely shifted away from that toward "the album's notability has to be individually established by sourcing that's actually about the album itself", so sometimes old articles created under the old notability standards are indeed poorly sourced — but they are sometimes salvageable with stronger sourcing than the rules that were applicable in 2010 required. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems improvable. Prob rename tho. Ought to point to Medicinal. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always love to see these things end in keeps with improved articles. I guess I missed that Exclaim! article, surprising as that is. I definitely don't remember seeing it, and while even if I had I still wouldn't've called this notable on that alone, the rest of the coverage Bearcat found looks like it seals the deal.

As for the renaming proposal, I had thought about that as well, but I don't see any other significant uses of the word "medicinals" on the site aside from the PJ Harvey song. The word doesn't even appear on Medicine (disambiguation), nor does its singular form. Disambiguating seems unnecessary to me. QuietHere (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:33, 14 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) 20:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Moo[edit]

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

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards based on the cited references. If there are other opinions, please share here. JRed176 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. He has appeared in many major works, the man meets GNG and WP: Actor. This account is either a SPA OR someone who has made an alt because with such few edits knowing how to use AFD feels like an agenda. Did you do WP:BEFORE before posting thisAsk me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  - ** The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field

  The magazine feature already covers this

  - ** Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production

  This is covered by his anime dubbing rules.

  Its unusual in that he has two businesses but those meet the roles. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally I think the account just saw the PROD notice being removed from the David Moo page with an unsuitable reason, not an SPA. They even tried to restore the PROD notice. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is about reliable sources in the plural, not just one source. One cited source is the case now after the review of the article i.e. the subject's voice over career, barring the external links. I don't believe the case can be made for being a notable bartender in this instance. The bar owned by the subject in question appears to be notable but a Wikipedia article could not be written only about a notable bartender with those sources presented (and could practically anyone good at their job with a few write ups online by extension have a Wikipedia article? I think not). Therefore, notability, if granted for purposes of a Wikipedia article is about the subject's voice over career and that alone primarily. If it is decided to keep the article, those who favor doing so should ideally find proper additional sources and cite them accordingly regarding the subject's work and impact. JRed176 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I went through the article and consolidated the sections due to the short length, making a "Personal life and career" section instead. I added where citations are needed. The consensus appears to be to keep the article. Due to its present state, I feel it's ok to keep it and simply put a references needed notice at the top. Thanks

JRed176 (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looking at the changes, my earlier concerns have been mitigated. I withdraw the PROD and feel the article can be kept. 38.140.49.92 (talk) 06:42, 12 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Fariz[edit]

Muhammad Fariz (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 draftified with the hopes of improvement, but no such luck, simply moved back referencing WP:NFOOTY as the reason for notability. Since that has been deprecated, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources below. GiantSnowman 19:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - in-depth media coverage - as one would expect playing for the top team in a city of nearly 4 million people. Examples one, two, three. Can you review User:GiantSnowman. Nfitz (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "in depth media coverage" above is 3 quote heavy articles that barely discuss Fariz and focus on other topics. Dougal18 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per above. Young player with ongoing fully pro career in Indonesian top flight which receives lots of media coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above .Subject is 18 years with an ongoing career see little point deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:12, 13 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. czar 18:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Hernandez[edit]

Sally Hernandez (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)

Local politician who does not meet WP:NPOL, and cannot find enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Police, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. County sheriffs are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show reasons why they could be credibly claimed as having nationalized significance beyond just their own county — but the references here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, not WP:GNG-building coverage or analysis of her significance in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As Bearcat said above. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it remained every single county sheriff in the world with no support for notability could by extension be entitled to a Wikipedia article. But why stop there, every former one could too, going back hundreds of years. JRed176 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk to Spider)]] 17:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and above fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:14, 13 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. Without prejudice to a 'category' in its place, as suggested by some participants in the discussion below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions[edit]

Cultural depictions (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:D doesn't seem like an appropriate way to tag this list. Can we get a bot to convert this to Category:Cultural depictions? I'd propose List of cultural depictions but there is no cultural depiction or any actual content beyond the bare list, so moving to category space sounds more appropriate. --Joy (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Disambiguations, and Lists. Joy (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename List of cultural depictions. Mccapra (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC) striking after reading other editors’ thoughts Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also didn't want to propose this because this would seem to require a discussion of WP:LISTN, and I have no idea if there's relevant reference works out there that could support it. --Joy (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'd be inclined to delete this, as it is much too broad, and we have multiple existing categories, templates, and articles on many cultural topics. For instance, we have
  • Animals in culture (aka Human uses of animals), ditto for Reptiles in culture, Birds in culture, Insects in culture, etc etc.
  • Template:Mammals in culture
  • Template:Reptiles in culture
  • Template:Birds in culture
• You'll see that each of this contains a list of links to individual species and related topics in culture, i.e. we have MANY articles just in this one area. As for categories:
  • Category:Animals in culture
  • Category:Birds in art
  • Category:Biology and culture
  • Category:Birds in mythology, etc etc etc. And this is just one area, cultural depictions of animals.
• So, I think an overall list of Cultural depictions pretty ridiculous, you might as well call it List of everything in culture, go for it. My !vote is DELETE for this reason. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't a list of cultural depictions, it's a list of pages that happened to be split out from their main articles. There are countless more sections within articles that list cultural depictions which are just as valid content but there were not length issues resulting in a split. There's lot more pages like Walter Raleigh in popular culture, and categories work better here. Reywas92^Talk 22:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just created Category:Cultural depictions and have begun to populate it with things that have "cultural depictions" in their title and aren't in a subcategory with the "cultural depictions" in its name. Far too many things would be in this article. Renaming it Cultural depictions of people wouldn't work either. Just look at how many categories there are for cultural depictions of various groups of people and how many entries they have. You'd need a lot of different list articles to list everything properly. And so its not just duplicating a category, have a table listing additional information to be more useful. Dream Focus 03:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dream Focus Just a note that Category:Cultural depictions of people existed, but was depreciated after the discussion linked from: Category talk:Cultural depictions of people. See also discussion I listed below; in summary the categories for cultural depiction just duplicate the "works about" tree. The category you've created should just redirect to Category:Works by topic, and all other cultural depiction categories need to be renamed or merged, many pointlessly duplicate stuff (example: Category:Cultural depictions of Adolf Hitler = Category:Works about Adolf Hitler). Etc. The disambig here is just a list of works by topic, too broad to exist as a list IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What is cultural depiction? It's list of works by topic, too broad to be a list. PS. This is related to the naming chaos I've described at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Culture#Naming_of_articles_in_Category:Topics_in_culture:_time_for_consistency?. We need to clean this OR up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, has the potential to be an endless, unmanageable list. This kind of thing is better taken care of with categories. Blythwood (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My declined PROD, albeit of a later version of this page, had the narrative: "Cultural depictions" is an ambiguous and vague expression. This is an invalid disambiguation page and is harmful because it obscures Search. There is no suitable target for a redirect. Note Cultural depiction does not exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list below it is helpful I feel to the public. JRed176 (talk) 18:34, 11 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. czar 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama–Southern Miss football rivalry[edit]

Alabama–Southern Miss football 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)

This does not appear to be a notable rivalry. Cited sources do not establish it as a rivalry, and a cursory search doesn't turn up much either. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. They have played 44 times in the past 76 years, but this has been a one-sided affair with Southern Miss winning only five games on the field and only twice in the last 40 years (1993 was a forfeit). Not finding SIGCOV or other indicators of a rivalry or historically notable series. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and Cbl62's comment. I don't see this as an established rivalry. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This was a main stay rivalry down here during the 90's and early 2000's. Jeff Bower made sure his Eagles were always ready to play Alabama and the same goes for Alabama. For someone that did the research for a week and made sure everything was fact checked and sources provided, this is so wrong of you all to do this. You know nothing about Alabama or Southern Miss football and have no right to delete anything on that page. BTW to CBL62, if you look at the Ole miss, Alabama rilvarly it is also mostly one sided as well... but let's not look at the facts. Slickrick53 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed, not a notable rivalry; at least not for the level of notability that we require here. Lots of games played, an enthusiastic editor may wish to try another wiki such as an online sports almanac.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cbl62's assessment. Frank Anchor 03:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Cbl62.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:18, 13 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 2024 Indonesian general election. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change Coalition (Indonesia)[edit]

Change Coalition (Indonesia) (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:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons mentioned by the nominator. If the discussions really broke down, this MUST also be cleaned up from the info boxes of these three parties. gidonb (talk)
• Merge into 2024 Indonesian general election. Party coalitions in Indonesia are generally formed for the purpose of meeting the threshold of 20 percent of seats in the legislature or 25 percent of popular votes in the prior election to advance a presidential candidate. The article in its current state does not meet WP:CRYSTALBALL and is already outdated, given that the latest new reports pushed back the date of possible formation to February 2023. [11] —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 15:21, 10 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. czar 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Student News[edit]

Cork Student News (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 website that fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. The subject, a short-lived/limited-scope/run-of-the-mill website meets none of the notability criteria. It seemingly didn't win the only award for which it was (self?)nominated. The only mentions in news sources are trivial passing mentions (like these in the Irish Examiner [12][13][14]). With zero mentions (even in passing) in Irish Times, Irish Independent, etc. In my WP:BEFORE, the only sources that I could find to confirm the basic facts (launch/closure/etc) are primary sources. Which is telling. The clear SPA/COI/PROMO intent also doesn't help. (I would've PRODed, but was speedied previously.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. ww2censor (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NWEB. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:34, 11 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 procedural keep. No prejudice against renominating these individually if a valid rationale is provided. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season[edit]

2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Penepi (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all unfinished, incomplete and/or pretty much empty articles:[reply]

2013–14 MŠK Žilina season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2015–16 MFK Zemplín Michalovce season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2021–22 MŠK Žilina season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2022–23 AS Trenčín season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2022–23 FC DAC 1904 Dunajská Streda season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep Different clubs, different seasons, with different sources, this is a terrible nomination. @GiantSnowman: You should know better than to allow this as an admin. Govvy (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Bundling is allowed for related articles, and I see no reason why it should not be permitted here. GiantSnowman 18:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Govvy I really can't see what is terrible about nominating empty articles. If you said that about two articles from the current season, potentially about the one from the 2021–22 season, I might incline to agree that they deserve some more time, but otherwise the only terrible thing is the logic to keep the other articles. The 2013–14 and 2015–16 articles haven't been edited in years, so it's very unlikely that anything will change about this in the future, and what's the point of having incomplete/empty articles here? But if you like, feel free to complete all of them, I'll be more than happy. Penepi (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Penepi: The country league is the only thing that keeps them together, different seasons can have different results, different clubs can actually have different results. The way you have bundled is a lot of work to review each season article and not only that you're asking people to delete these, when they need to be assessed differently. This is not a good nomination. Govvy (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These pages are mostly for the top league in Slovakia - a fully professional league. As such WP:NSEASONS is met. Furthermore, the reason for nomination appears to be that the pages need improving. Which means as per WP:ATD they should be improved not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. WP:NSEASONS specifically states: In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article. On that basis, my question is: Is there any way that some of these individual seasons could be combined together in a single article, incorporating at least a paragraph or two of meaningful prose citing reliable sources? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Cielquiparle: Why would you group a season from 2013-14 with a season from 2022-23, there is no logic in doing that. Yet we have multiple seasons from different years in one AfD here. This is not a practical way to run an AfD. Govvy (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think the combining would be mostly done in cases where a team for a season or two had slipped into a lower league which many not meet NSEASONS. Some (all?) of these nominations are for top league seasons. There's no prejudice against trying to merge articles once the AFD is over. That's more of a content issue. Nfitz (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep (reject and invalidate nomination). Deeply troubling that nominator has used the term "empty articles" in the original nomination, and twice in a subsequent comment. The concern is that it misrepresents the current state of not only one, but a bundle of articles nominated for deletion, and that it could easily mislead participants into believing that each of those articles is completely devoid of content and sources, which is not the case at all. This alone is sufficient reason to invalidate this nomination, IMO. In addition, the other two reasons given in the nomination – "unfinished" and "incomplete" – are not grounds for deletion; all Wikipedia articles are by definition works in progress. The subsequent comment of "haven't been edited in years" is also not grounds for deletion per WP:NEGLECT; and the comment "feel free to complete all of them" obviously flouts WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Strongly recommend that the nominator familiarize themselves with WP:Deletion policy and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - I oppose bundling this many articles into one discussion as it's almost impossible to have a constructive debate about each individual one so, to some extent, I'm looking for a procedural keep. There will be some coverage of 2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season, for example, since they won the league that season. In fact, definitely 'keep' for Slovan's 2013–14 season due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Webnoviny, which discusses at length their potential for a league and cup double, Teraz, from which I found several articles about Slovan's season and Dobrenoviny, which also discusses Slovan's title prospects and the further prospect of a record-breaking attendance in a crucial match. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 12 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. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs on Earth Then...and Now 1995[edit]

Dinosaurs on Earth Then...and Now 1995 (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 can't find anything about this 25 min instructional video other than that it exists and can apparently still be ordered on DVD [15] (wonder what the sales rate is :). No independent 3rd party coverage. Notability appears insufficient. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Education. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a google search found nothing much, there is no entry at all at IMDb. If good sources can be found please ping me, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:18, 10 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 Wings West Airlines as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 15:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Morro[edit]

Mark Morro (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)

While certainly accomplished, I can't find any in-depth sourcing on this business executive. He definitely gets mentioned, but no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect to Wings West Airlines). I tried to work with the initial editor of this article to identify significant coverage on the article talk page, but was unsuccessful. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the proponent of this discussion for deletion is bent on targeting this particular page out of thousands of other Wikipedia pages that don't even bother with a single independent source. "Mark Morro" article has secondary and independent sources offering coverage for the individual who is a publicly acclaimed and fairly criticized openly gay investor, entrepreneur, and producer. Although the article is short and informative, it contains strong citations. Go ahead, considering there are only 1,000 admins on Wikipedia, the close circle can knit WP:Bite pages but can't adhere. FelitaSandrin (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE JavaHurricane 01:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide the quotes I asked you for on the talk page that would establish notability? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You will delete an article from Wikipedia because you don't know how to use a VPN to get around certain sites? Seems rational enough.... for you. Consider this, a lot of biographies not only from 2022 or 2023, but even before that, lack credible citations. And those that do have any citations, are from "questionable" platforms. Be reasonable, and kindly let it get merged with Wings West Airlines.

  PS: Providing references within the article should eliminate the need to list down every notable coverage and "passages" for someone. FelitaSandrin (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can find absolutely no significant sourcing on this person beside PR and sundry paid spam articles on questionable websites. Fails WP:BIO by a long shot. JavaHurricane 15:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not notable, spam, and it was probably heading to G5 anyway (BrookeCook). MarioGom (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Care to explain lad? FelitaSandrin (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You tell me. See WP:PAID. MarioGom (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wings West Airlines, which he founded. Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:37, 14 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. When there are multiple reliable sources, send through WP:AFC for review rather than directly moving into mainspace. czar 18:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syun Koide[edit]

Syun Koide (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)

Has been redirected, has been draftified, in hopes of improving the sourcing. With no effect. Currently it is sourced by two primary and one unreliable source. Searches only turned up coverage in that same unreliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - Most sources are either primary like Honda Racing or WP:ROUTINE like Formula Scout - both reliable, but neither WP:SIGCOV. I could only find one in-depth, independent, non-routine article (and it was by searching his name in Japanese), so for now it appears that he doesn't meet GNG – maybe someone with better knowledge of Japanese can find more. Either way, his recent F4 title, affiliation to Honda and promotion to Super Formula Lights (the step inmediately below Super Formula) suggest that WP:POTENTIAL for notability is high, so I think incubating in draftspace until more sources appear and/or he wins in SFL is the way to go here. MSport1005 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would have draftified, except it had already been sent to draft. If it is sent to draft, it should only be allowed to be moved into mainspace with Admin approval. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify – This shouldn't have been moved to mainspace, there's no way it's ready. I agree with MSport1005's assessment, the subject doesn't meet GNG for now. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:23, 10 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Double sharp (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skathi (moon)[edit]

Skathi (moon) (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)

Despite the GA status, this article is in my view artificially inflated by re-explaining common facts to all irregular natural satellites, e.g. origins (which is mostly a glorified "we don't know much"), or even worse, explaining common facts to all astronomical objects, e.g. orbital inclination and eccentricity. Once one removes this, there is precious little content that is actually specific to Skathi: simply discovery, naming, rotation period, and the specific orbital elements, which is only enough to fill a table row rather than a full article. (And even the naming story is shared with other moons.) There are no specific sources only about this moon and thus notability does not appear to be met; see also discussion at Talk:Moons of Jupiter#Should we stop creating articles for newly-discovered irregular moons? that makes the same point for almost all the irregular moons and found a broad consensus to redirect almost all of them. Propose redirection to Moons of Saturn#Skathi, which already gives the orbital elements and discovery year (LaundryPizza03 has already added name etymologies to the Uranus and Neptune moon articles, and presumably etymologies will similarly be added soon to the Jupiter and Saturn ones). Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I am not completely convinced by the evidence provided, but consensus is unanimously for keeping, so there's no point in having this run any further. Double sharp (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: At issue is whether or not the page passes GNG as the subject of multiple in-depth reliable sources. This NASA page is fully devoted to Skathi and is called "Skathi In Depth". Two different books devote at least a few paragraphs to Skathi itself: the Solar System Moons book by Blunck and the chapter on Saturn's icy moons in Enceladus and the Icy Moons of Saturn; both are cited with page numbers in the article. The book by Blunck particularly singles out Skathi's naming as a distinguishing feature. Skathi also appears as a useful and distinct case, either for its name or its physical features, in a number of scientific articles and books. In these links its features are dealt with as a separate entity distinct from other objects, and things about it are deemed interesting or informative enough to mention it specifically by name (With varying levels of detail: 1 2 3 4 5). Also, as a simple heuristic for GNG, the page had a thorough GA review and all of the questions about it were answerable using the sources available. The circumstances of this page have always been strange (its view counts are still the subject of an open phabricator ticket), but all that matters is that the page passes GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Blunck book (which I have) covers every single moon then known in the Solar System. Considering that consensus found most of them to be not notable enough, this does not by itself seem to be enough evidence (and besides, it talks more about the namesakes than about the moons). Similarly, such NASA pages exist for all the moons, and the sources presented are about irregulars in general, not Skathi specifically. Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with discounting content related to the namesakes is that the naming of Skathi is probably its most important distinguishing feature, and the thing that reliable sources focus most on. This, and its usefulness (together with other objects in the same group) for testing theories about the formation of Saturn's moons, is probably the feature that its encyclopedic notability hinges on. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that is more naturally covered by our article on the namesake: Skaði herself. Likewise, the usefulness of the irregulars in testing theories on Solar System formation is more naturally covered by the main article irregular satellite. Your argumentation would suggest copying and pasting the exact same content over a bunch of almost identical articles, one for each moon; IMO, that would seem to be an inefficient organisation, not to mention a maintenance nightmare. Double sharp (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is about WP:OTHERSTUFF. The overall intellectual organization of Wikipedia writ large is not of issue at the deletion discussion for this specific page. What matters is that this page passes GNG. Incidentally, I think this is enough back-and-forth, and I'll make this my last reply for a while. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and speedy close. Well sourced and a Good article. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree with speedy-closing a nomination that other editors (at a different venue) agreed with. Especially when my argument is precisely that the sources are sourcing irrelevant content, coverage is not in depth, and that the article in my view should not be a GA. To paraphrase it in a more familiar context: this article is in my view kind of like writing a full article about one nondescript stop on a long railway that has gotten no coverage outside the railway as a whole. Sure it can look excellent if the railway is well-covered by RS and we spend a whole lot of paragraphs writing about the railway instead of the nondescript stop, but is notability truly demonstrated by this? Double sharp (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per comments by Astrophobe. There is verifiable information available on the topic that comes from verifiable, independent secondary sources, and the topic is far more than merely mentioned in these sources. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In at least one of those sources (19) the extent of the topic's mention is literally one entry in a table. That is certainly not "far more than merely mentioned" and is in fact pretty much precisely what WP:NASTRO warns about: Coverage must be specific and substantial: notability is not ensured just because an object is listed in a scientific paper or included in a large-scale astronomical survey. To establish notability, the astronomical object must have significant commentary in reliable sources, such as being one of the primary targets of a study with in-depth discussion (beyond discovery and basic parameters). On my phone now, will check the others later, but if memory serves it was similar. Double sharp (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it has enough sources to demonstrate notability. Moreover, I don't see what would be the benefit to Wikipedia in deleting this article. The problem with obscure astronomical objects is that nobody cares about writing a good article about them, and they end up as poorly maintained stubs forever. This is clearly not the case here. Tercer (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view the benefit would be that we avoid having an article on something RS have not covered in depth per WP:NASTRO, and most of whose non-data content is not about Skathi, but about irregular moons in general, or about Skaði the goddess. Double sharp (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask that you please not tendentiously hector every Keep !voter? I don't want to respond to all of your responses and get into an exchange under every single !vote, but it's not productive for every comment by any editor to be followed by a rebuttal from the person who opened the AfD. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if that's what you'd prefer. Need to sleep anyway, tomorrow I'll probably post a separate comment (not a reply) analysing the sources in detail. Double sharp (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

WP:NASTRO 3 no? Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:NASTRO, there is significant coverage about this object. It is one of the original 17 Norse moons and one of the 10 being given a name, some of which have articles of their own as well. Though I do agree that most of the references about this moon are just mere mentions of it. And by that reason I do not recommend this to be a GA article. Maybe lower it to B or C-class, perhaps? SkyFlubbler (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I expected that removing small Saturnian moons that have nontrivial shape and size data would be controversial and possibly overzealous; the final decisions regarding the Saturnian moon articles were largely based only on size. For example, the light curves of the following moons were studied in Denk et al. (2018):^[1] Phoebe, Kiviuq, Ijiraq, Paaliaq, Tarqeq, Siarnaq, Albiorix, Bebhionn, Erriapus, Tarvos, Narvi (moon), Bestla, Skathi, Skoll, Hyrrokkin, Greip, Suttungr, Thrymr, Mundilfari, Hati, Bergelmir, Kari, Loge, Ymir, and Fornjot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the grounds that this is the kind of thing I expect to see when I open an encyclopedia. The topic is well-defined and conceptually separate enough to warrant a page of its own;; the claims are supported by references that appear reasonably trustworthy. The point that such NASA pages exist for all the moons is an argument to have articles about all the moons, not an argument to delete this one. It's not conclusive by itself, but it leans in that direction. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As the person who started the discussion of limiting the number of irregular moon articles, I'll give this one a pass. Yes, there is not a lot known about it, but it's still a relevant subject (as with many others) of Denk et al.'s ongoing work on the Saturnian irregulars' rotation periods and poles. Skathi is the first known example of an outlier of the Norse group;[16] even for multiple centuries, it remains on a relatively high inclination and is Saturn's closest retrograde irregular besides Phoebe.[17][[18] Although I did say I keep the largest 8 out of the 12 irregulars discovered in 2000, I didn't mean that authoritatively and it ended up being taken for granted unilaterally. I should have mentioned about having leeways in restricting articles, so I apologize for not making that clear beforehand. This article is well-written—calling it out for "glorifying" uncertainties and unknowns is a rather hyperbolic excuse. By your arguments for notability, that would mean deleting articles like 2010 FX86 and 2021 RR205. Nrco0e (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. This goes beyond what was originally proposed at Talk:Moons of Jupiter. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOWBALL Keep: notable. I have no issue with re-explaining facts common to other articles. We shouldn't be assuming that the reader already has that background, and WP:NOTPAPER applies. Praemonitus (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this nomination for deletion of an article about a near-earth celestial object is an absurd waste of everyone's time and a perfect example of tunnel vision in re Wikipedia management jengod (talk) 06:49, 8 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. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canada v Mexico (2022 FIFA World Cup qualification)[edit]

Canada v Mexico (2022 FIFA World Cup qualification) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As per Rosguill, "No coverage since the week of the game, does not appear to meet WP:LASTING". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. Upset victories are not uncommon, and there isn't something special about this one. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 15:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Keep per below. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 07:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF third round per my prior edit summary comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm surprised by Rosguill and Onel5969 that there has been no coverage since 2021, given how frequently this game is still discussed. There was even significant coverage in Brazil only a few weeks ago, over 1-year after the match. There's also been many brief mentions recent in written media internationally, such as The Globe and Mail, The Sunday Times of London, and [https://www.the42.ie/canada-world-cup-preview-eoin-ocallaghan-5925015-Nov2022/ The42 in Irelend. Perhaps we can hear further thoughts from those two editors? Nfitz (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for finding these sources. I can't access the Sunday Times article but the rest are already enough for me to flip to keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Disagree with the nomination, and I can access The Times, that is a good article. Govvy (talk) 17:12, 8 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. czar 18:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biswanath College[edit]

Biswanath College (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)

In a WP:BEFORE, the existence can be verified, but there was no significant coverage in reliable sources, failing general notability guidelines.

The college also fails notability guidelines for organisations. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Odisha. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I tried to search on Google but did not find anything helpful. This college does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Numis Zuhair (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apart from only one news source, the college does not have in-depth coverage in any of the multiple reliable sources and it is also a ordinary college like others which does not fulfill the WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL criteria. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:46, 9 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. czar 18:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Markus[edit]

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

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and Cannot see how they pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, Austria, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. JSTOR isn't working for me right now but searching Google Scholar for intitle:"Manfred Markus" finds plenty of reviews of his books, enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: JSTOR issues and a need to over gender sterilize, as "they" almost confused me. The subject appears to be an author, did have co-authors (21 scholarly books and over 100 articles), and the article seems to not be in question that the subject is a male, married with children, and I have seen no evidence there is any gender questioning. If I am wrong the article needs to reflect that as a grave error. Being presented a Festschriften seems to be a milestone, even if some of the content does not reflect all major achievements, but does indicate peer reviews. However, the article states: In 1981 he was appointed chairholder as a full professor of English linguistics and medieval English literature at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, and has been a professor emeritus since 2009. Being a "chairholder" is not the same as being awarded a Named chair, but the notability criteria #5 states; The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. If I or anyone else has issues with WP:NPROF, lacking any verifiable issues with the sentence, this is not the venue for discussion. If the subject held a named chair, it seems he passes the criteria for a stand alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per User:Otr500. Shoerack (talk) 17:25, 10 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umayartuvarankulam[edit]

Umayartuvarankulam (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 source and a WP:BEFORE doesn't produce much other than Wikipedia and its derivatives. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I think WP:PROD would have been easier. _MB190417_ (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am waiting how this first few discussion go. I have nominated some others as well, and in one there is at least some GEOLAND concern. But if it goes through, I might consider my first PROD. Its creator seemed to have created several of such stubs. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, as per WP:NGEO, populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Have provided references. Dan arndt (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Dan arndt The sources you added are offline, and I presume you had access on them for real. Was there more info on the settlement in the source, or was that it? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: - the sources are published sources from reliable / reputable organisations. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC on the GNIS says otherwise. @Phil Bridger mentioned GNIS is not an RS for populated places per GEOLAND before. If a source of colonial times is seen as an RS, is a point of view. And the third source I can not access. If you'd add also the name of the source to what is meant to be an URL it would be great. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then also, was there more information on the settlement in the source or is that it? If there is, someone might try to get access to the source an add some more information. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - On the good faith assumption that the Report on the Census of Ceylon source provided by Dan arndt does verify that Umayartuvarankulam was, at least at one point in history, a legally recognised populated settlement. If Dan arndt has access to the source and can provide further information for the article (in particular, a population figure for 1921) that would help. If we can verify that the settlement was at one point legally recognised and populated (even if only in the past) then it passes WP:GEOLAND and should be presumed notable. I am also influenced by the fact Wikipedia suffers from systematic bias concerning places such as Umayartuvarankulam; in a case such as this we must consider the possibility that sources exist which are either not available online or not in English (or both). If we can verify that this is (or once was) a legally recognised populated settlement, then I think we can assume that reliable sources are likely to exist - even if we cannot find them right now. Keeping the article allows editors who might have better access to relevant sources to come across this article and improve it in the future. WJ94 (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The 1921 census lists it as an uninhabited village [19] (bracket 180). Rupples (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for that - much appereciated. In which case we do not have any reliable sources verifying that this was ever a populated settlement, so my !vote is delete unless/until someone turns up another source. WJ94 (talk) 17:46, 12 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madiu Bari[edit]

Madiu 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)

Amateur footballer from Portugal / Guinea Bissau who has basically no significant WP:SIGCOV, therefore failing WP:GNG. A Google search returns solely empty stats pages and a couple transfer reports, and nothing else. [20] Angelo (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:42, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoros Katsiaris[edit]

Theodoros Katsiaris (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)

Stats stub with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My searches in Google News and DDG came back fruitless. 24 sports is just a basic contract renewal announcement, most of which is copied from his club's press release, so is not WP:IS. Sport FM is just a quote from him, with no analysis from third parties. He is mentioned once in passing in Sportime regarding yellow cards received. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:34, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Dhabiani[edit]

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

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

Badly sourced BLP. Zero evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC despite briefly playing at the professional level. Best source I can find is FilGoal, which is clearly a database source and therefore not acceptable for SPORTBASIC. Only other source I can find is Al-Hazm's Twitter, which is not reliable or independent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. HennSw123 (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:37, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abduraheem Al-Debbas[edit]

Abduraheem Al-Debbas (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)

Played 29 mins of professional football before moving down to the semi-pro leagues. I am unable to find any substantial coverage so struggling to see how this passes WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. In Arabic searches, the best sources I can find are Alyaum, a brief quote from him before a match with no third-party analysis, El Heddaf, a contract renewal announcement and Hasa News, a match report that mentions him once in the article as a goalscorer and once in the article title. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:38, 11 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Jfire (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC) and promptly salted (see [21]). DMacks (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtyar Aziz[edit]

Bakhtyar Aziz (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 initially created on 13 August 2021 by BakhtyarAziiz who would appear to be the subject of the article. It has then been re-created and speedily deleted a number of times without formal review. Perhaps there may be reliable sources in Arabic and the Kurdish languages to support the assertions made here? WP:BEFORE done, and it would appear that an article about Mr Aziz would fail any number of tests for notability including but not limited to WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ANYBIO. I usually add "always happy to be proved wrong" to WP:AFD-s. In this case, however, it would be reasonable for other editors to ask "why are using your admin permissions to start an WP:AFD instead of outright deleting the article?" Pete AU aka User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The page is deleted under CSD G5. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:02, 7 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. Daniel (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 118 episodes[edit]

List of 118 episodes (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 large portion of the article was written by 2679D, currently blocked for copyright violations, so the plots here are likely copyvio too. Even with the plots removed, the list would still be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so I don't recommend merging it back to the main article. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Singapore. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 7 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 Procedural WP:SNOW close. The nomination is essentially asking in part for information about the novel to be added to the page, and if the nominator wants the redirect to be deleted, then Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion would be the place for this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruby Circle[edit]

The Ruby Circle (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 meant to be about the novel itself, yet only contains a redirect to the author, which is misleading. Nikkisha16 (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this was an article before - see here. I'm confused as to what you are requesting. Do you want to write an article on this book or do you want the entire article deleted? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: That rev was a pretty obvious copyvio. I've put a CV-Revdel on the page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Unclear why this AFD was made, it's fine as a redirect as-is. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Padgriffin, absent any clarification on why the redirect has been nominated for deletion. _MB190417_ (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. This is the wrong venue. WP:RfD is thataway. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:CSK. The deletion rationale is completely erroneous (CSK#3) and the discussion is at the wrong deletion forum. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:CSK. I agree with others above that this is the wrong venue. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close. Valid redirect and erroneous rationale in incorrect venue. VickKiang (talk) 03:06, 11 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!} 08:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decimal (cryptocurrency)[edit]

Decimal (cryptocurrency) (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 was tagged as WP:CSD#G11, which I am uncertain about (the article has citations, at least claims notability, and has existed in mainspace since December 11). Nonetheless, it is not a particularly great article.

Almost all of the citations are to self-published sources. The sources that aren't self-published are questionable; being listed on CoinMarketCap is of dubious notability, for example, as there are tens of thousands of tokens, coins and chains listed there. Others, like the citations to cosmos.network, have nothing to do with Decimal. I have been unable to find any reliable sources talking about this company. jp×g 08:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At the risk of arguing with someone who otherwise largely agrees with my opinion on the article... having citations, claiming notability, and existing for a few weeks doesn't excuse an article from being deleted under G11. A7 requires a claim to significance, while G11 only cares about how promotional the article is, and it's very clear that this SPA-authored article is promotional. (It was worse before I removed a large unencyclopedic "features and functions" list.) In any case, the citations are indeed garbage and I located no significant reliable coverage outside of that. I don't speak Russian so can't search for sources in Russian, but on the other hand, frankly I wouldn't trust a Russian source on cryptocurrency as far as I could throw it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Best I can find are conversion calculators for the currency. No coverage in any sort of RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and my review of the sources in the article and a mild additional search. Skynxnex (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PMC. I'll be honest, if I'd came across the article in its original state I'd probably have processed the G11. firefly ( t · c ) 17:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:G11 concerns aside, I conducted an online search and I found that the article subject lacks significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources (see WP:NCRYPTO w.r.t crypto-specific websites). As such, the article should be deleted for its subject lacking notability. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:13, 8 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!} 06:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FC Twin[edit]

FC Twin (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 was looking at this as part of writing a blurb for the featured picture which accompanies the article, and as far as I could tell there's a lack of significant coverage of this console, I couldn't really find any sources on which to construct a complete article. Many of the sources that are in the page currently don't really refer to this particular console, more general info about famiclones, while those that do mention it directly such as [22] and [23] are just lists of games that work on the console and a passing mention. I'm happy to be corrected if there are more serious sources around though.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 31 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!} 07:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't seem to be any actual sourcing besides the ones used in the article. And it overrelies on one source too many times so its notability is really questionable. GamerPro64 20:59, 7 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. Consensus was keep (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talamasca[edit]

Talamasca (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 like a minor plot element, failing WP:GNG (SIGCOV). I can't even suggest a reasonable WP:ATD to redirect this to. The article is a pure plot summary, and its only redeeming quality is that it's referenced, but mentions in passing don't suffice to show notability. PS. Was prodded by User:Avilich , prod was removed by User:Spinningspark with "has entries in horror encyclopaedias". But the entry in The Vampire Book: The Encyclopedia of the Undead, despite being two pages long, seems to be a pure plot summary, and that fails WP:NOTPLOT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom statement is defective in that RS'es cannot fail WP:NOTPLOT as it only applies to how Wikipedia writes about fictional topics, not how our sources do. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could the brief contents of the article be merged into another? Hellbus (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hellbus Possibly, but what we have is a tiny amount of plot summary from several books that effectively amounts to "this fictional organization appears in book A, B, C". Is this even worth merging? The organization is presumably mentioned in the plot summaries of those books anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 2 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!} 07:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Hellbus that discussion of plot in reliable sources is not the same as a Wikipedia editor's plot summary of the source work. The former adds to notability, the latter does not. The former tells us which plot elements reliable sources believe are significant. If that was all we had, that would still justify inclusion in Wikipedia (in some form), but when I deprodded the article I had much more to say on this than the nom's quote of my short edit summary would lead one to believe. I named a number of sources from which out-of-universe discussion can be extracted. You have to look for it, but it is there. Here are two quotes;

Together with Maharet's tapestry and the matrilineal family tree, the Talamasca provides a lineage, a coherent mythology,...

— Linda Badley, Writing Horror and the Body

In one sense or another, there are a number of anthropologists in the Mayfair trilogy. I wish to concentrate briefly , however, on the Talamasca, Ashlar, and Rowan Mayfair. These three provide sufficient examples to establish Rice's anthropological sensibility.

— Gary G. Roberts, The Gothic World of Anne Rice

SpinningSpark 13:49, 7 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!} 22:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ferry (footballer)[edit]

Patrick Ferry (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC. Recreated after last AFD with more references which still don't amount to significant coverage. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The previous instance was deleted at AfD a year ago, since when the subject has dropped down a tier to Ballinamallard United F.C.. Such coverage as is available relates to that loan move which then became permanent, and then match coverage. I am not seeing the evidence that specific biographical notability has been attained which would be needed to overturn the December 2021 AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 16:33, 7 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 Swedish Masters International Badminton Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Swedish International[edit]

2007 Swedish International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a grand prix/grand prix gold event to justify a separate article. It is a series/challenger event, so should be either redirected to Swedish Masters International Badminton Championships or just deleted. zoglophie 06:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Sweden. zoglophie 06:47, 24 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!} 06:58, 31 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!} 07:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swedish Masters International Badminton Championships. I could not find anything on google or Wikipedia Library. The title is also non detailed. There could be 100 other things that had a 2007 sweeden international.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Swedish Masters International Badminton Championships - can't see how this would pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 12 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!} 05:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Meghnaghat Power Limited[edit]

Unique Meghnaghat Power Limited (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)