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!} 23:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Ross Ventures[edit]

Fort Ross Ventures (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)

Nominated per IP userrequest: Non-notable fund. All sources indicate only the investment rounds of this fund and are news. Many of the sources duplicate each other and are clippings from interviews, and the contents are press releases. 2A00:1FA1:4347:268B:8C87:6A2C:79F4:A69A (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by: UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does lack of references of a source make it not worthy? New to wiki. Teddy012 (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For good information on what is needed, see both the WP:golden rule and WP:Notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think this fails to meet CORPDEPTH. The non-press releases/business churnalism sources, like the NYT piece, refer to Fort Ross Ventures only slightly and in the context of Russian funding; it's not significantly about Ventures themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Water jet (recreation)[edit]

Water jet (recreation) (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 unlikely this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Geography. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hard to find significant coverage on this particular niche device, but the statement "it is also used in agriculture" suggests the author of the article wasn't exactly splitting hairs.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to water cannon, this subject is basically a subtype. - Indefensible (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as wholly unsourced (for 16.71 years!) without any evidence of improvability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Porter[edit]

Star Porter (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and sports-related notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Horse racing, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Star Porter's sire The Porter (horse) is indeed notable but on balance Star Porter doesn't seem to be. Limited sources but taking the following source as reliable, Star Porter is not featured as a notable progeny.http://www.americanclassicpedigrees.com/the-porter.html. Based on this, I don't believe a redirect/merge is required to the sire and this article can be deleted. Also, the races won by Star Porter in the article don't seem notable as none appear to have wikilinked articles. Rupples (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Woodward (actor)[edit]

Bob Woodward (actor) (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and actor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, California, and Oklahoma. UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, possibly tagged because nobody knew how to find the sources. From the AFI (American Film Institute) catalogue, I was able to link the list of his films. Over a period of 32 years, he made a lot of films. FYI, The American Film Institute was founded by a 1965 presidential mandate to establish a national arts organization to preserve the legacy of American film heritage. The problem with searching for sources on the actor Bob Woodward, is that the same-named The Washington Post reporter of the Watergate era keeps coming up. The actor Bob Woodward was indeed in all five seasons of the Gene Autry Show, which I found a source for. Although ImDB is not technically used as a source, a glance at his page will show you that he worked for decades in the medium of television. Hopefully, another Wikipedia editor will find more sourcing. — Maile (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree that he fails GNG and NACTOR. He was in half of the episodes of both The Gene Autry Show and Buffalo Bill, Jr., and had named roles in large number of films. He was a staple in Gene Autry's productions, and a stunt double for Autry, Buck Jones, and few others. He's also in the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pass in WP:NACTOR Criteria, have significant roles in many films or drama Worldiswide (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No comments after two relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White House debate competition hoax[edit]

White House debate competition hoax (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 did not receive enough coverage to justify a Wikipedia page. Some kid made a hoax that got a little press coverage. WP:ONEEVENT definitely applies here. Angryapathy (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems well-sourced. Neutral in tone, I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Events, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively to Mass media in Bangladesh. There's no reason why this one-off event with no lasting effects should have its own article. The target article, on the other hand, could benefit from a few sentences about this as part of a broader coverage of the topic's history. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 17 October 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 Kiedrowice. RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiedrowice (hamlet)[edit]

Kiedrowice (hamlet) (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 prodded by Edward-Woodrow but de-prodded by Espresso Addict.

The location for this "hamlet" given in the article is the local forestry office for the village of Kiedrowice (see here), the centre of which is located a short distance away and for which we already have an article.

As such this article is self-evidently just a duplication.

Looking at the 2012 location-names law, this lists a "forest settlement" (osada leśna) called Kiedrowice in Lipnica as well as a "village" (wieś) with the same name also in Lipnica - there is no reason given here not to believe these are not exactly the same thing, included as a clerical artefact in this 1500+ page long document. The relevant content of the 2015 law is identical. The 1746-page-long postal directory lists two addresses called "Kiedrowice" - Kiedrowice and Kiedrowice (Karcz) (i.e., remnant, or "stub", though there does appear to be another hamlet called Karcz in the general area with a different PNA), evidently the same location as they have the same PNA. None of these have any data giving the actual location of these places (which begs the question of where the location in the article comes from), nor their population.

A WP:BEFORE search is meaningless as results are found for the village. The Polish article is identical except that it identifies it as a "forest settlement".

Normally it would be reasonable to propose merging, but there is nothing to merge here since the details are essentially the same (same post-code, some other details).

This is what happens when articles are generated at speed from sources that do no more than list names in a geographical hierarchy - the creator spent about 4 minutes on this article and I've now spent ~30 minutes doing this review. FOARP (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This same user has created many substubs on locations in Poland that follow this model, giving nothing more than a generic statement regarding the location, and then a bit of database information in the infobox, all based off one or two census sources. FOARP, was there some kind of discussion at one point regarding banning GEOLAND articles (or doing something, at least) that are based solely on such sources? I BLAR'd the ones a found at NPP, but Joe Roe reverted those edits, saying that my reasoning was subjective. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've argued that one to death and I don't think we're going to see much movement for a while at least. What I'd like to know is where the location data came from, as it's not in any of the sources in the article. FOARP (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thanks for starting a deletion discussion and doing the research. Could we just redirect Kiedrowice (hamlet) to Kiedrowice? Or if you are certain the sources for the hamlet are actually talking about the same place, they could be added to the village, ie merging. Then if someone does come up with a source that shows the forest settlement is distinct and tells us something meaningful about it, it can easily be resurrected. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There’s nothing to merge here as the content is the same, nor is there any point in a redirect for something nobody is going to search (EDIT: particularly because Kiedrowice is not defined as a hamlet, which in Polish is a przysiółek, but as a forest settlement or osada leśna, so the title is incorrect). The article-content in its entirety is "Kiedrowice is a hamlet in the Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland, within the Gmina Lipnica, Bytów County.", which is identical to content already in the "village" article except that it says "Kiedrowice [kʲɛdrɔˈvit͡sɛ] is a village in Gmina Lipnica, Bytów County, Pomeranian Voivodeship, in northern Poland." There's a post-code in the info-box that I've added to the "village" article, the references are repetitious but appear to say the same thing as the "village" article, but I've added them all the same, so what's left to merge? FOARP (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could get into attribution issues if you've taken content from Kiedrowice (hamlet) and used it in another article?? Not an area I have any expertise in. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no attribution issue with taking content from one page and adding it to another, that already recited essentially the same information (i.e., that Kiedrowice is a village in Gmina Lipnica). FOARP (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I'll probably start an AfD on pl wiki (if I do so I'll link it here if this is still open) but I don't see how this meets GNG. Per [2] it is not a hoax (it exists, classified as osada leśna, separate from the village) but what can be said about it? I fear, nothing. WP:NOPAGE seems to be strong here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Piotrus.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:10, 23 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

山州[edit]

山州 (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)

Page doe not meet WP:NONENGLISHTITLE requirements. -- Primium (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Primium (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. There's no policy forbidding disambiguation pages with titles in non-English scripts. They're a logical extension of redirects in languages other than English when there's more than one primary topic and we have hundreds in Chinese alone. Suggest you withdraw this and related AfDs. – Joe (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, such disambiguation pages (which are not articles) has been much discussed in the past and is accepted practice. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Membership in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (385) is not a valid deletion rationale. Not sure how else we'd disambiguate names of subjects that are transliterated differently depending on the native language of the subject, but a new process would take a sitewide RfC. Folly Mox (talk) 12:16, 18 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

板橋[edit]

板橋 (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)

Page doe not meet WP:NONENGLISHTITLE requirements. -- Primium (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Primium (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. There's no policy forbidding disambiguation pages with titles in non-English scripts. They're a logical extension of redirects in languages other than English when there's more than one primary topic and we have hundreds in Chinese alone. Suggest you withdraw this and related AfDs. – Joe (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, such disambiguation pages (which are not articles) has been much discussed in the past and is accepted practice. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Membership in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (385) is not a valid deletion rationale. Not sure how else we'd disambiguate names of subjects that are transliterated differently depending on the native language of the subject, but a new process would take a sitewide RfC. Folly Mox (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Study Breaks[edit]

Study Breaks (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 first source on this page is the magazine's own about page, and the third is a press release on a PR website. Neither of those provide notability, and while the Paisano article (archived) does, it alone does not show notability for this article. I couldn't find more coverage, though the problems with searching for a news publication with a generic name like this are not lost on me, but if there indeed isn't more coverage available then I'm afraid this fails the notability pass and should be deleted. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Entertainment, and Texas. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 October 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 Move and redirect‎ , which I will do manually. Please tweak if needed Star Mississippi 00:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Na Górze[edit]

Na Górze (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 mass-created article created by Kotbot, a deactivated bot.

The name means literally "at the top". From the map it appears to be a farm in the village of Gliśno Wielkie. Notably the GMaps address given for this location is in that village. The only source given in the article is the TERYT database, but I could not locate an entry for this.

Searching this Polish postal directory I also could not find an entry for this place in Lipnica, Bytów. This 2015 law on Polish place names (1500+ pages long) describes it as "Part of Gliśno Wielkie" (część wsi Gliśno Wielkie), not as a settlement (osada), so the article is inaccurate.

Exactly none of these sources describes this place as ever having been a populated settlement, as such it fails WP:GEOLAND. Merging to Gliśno Wielkie is meaningless as no information is included in the article to merge. Redirecting the Polish phrase for "at the top" to a random village in rural Poland makes no sense. That leaves deletion. FOARP (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Redirecting the Polish phrase for "at the top" to a random village in rural Poland makes no sense"? That's the name of the place and it's part of the village. In English such a phrase could be a "random" song or album. There are other places so disambiguation would be more useful. Peter James (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter, there are 15 different locations with the same name listed on PL Wiki, a film, and a rock-band - why would anyone be looking for this? Not even address of the location is listed as being Na Górze - though the postal directory lists a (similarly non-notable) address in Rybnik. This title falls into at least two classes of un-needed redirect:

    • 1) The title is a Polish-language adjective ("topmost"/"top") with no actual affinity to the subject. See WP:AFFINITY.

      2) The title is WP:UNHELPFUL since it raises unrealistic expectations - we do not redirect every named location and building in a village to the village. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • Settlements in a parish are typically redirected to the parish if there is not enough content for a separate article. WP:AFFINITY would only be a reason not to redirect it to an article with no connection to the language or add an article with no connection to that language to a disambiguation page. Whether a place is in a postal directory are not always relevant - in the UK some villages and large suburbs can be missing entirely and a small village can be included three times. Peter James (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        This isn’t a settlement, though - that would be listed as an osada. This is simply a place-name, one that is essentially an adjective. FOARP (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move then Redirect. Per pl wiki and TERYT, this is just part of a village. I don't see how this has a stand-alone notability. Will start pl wiki AFD soon. PS. First, move this to Na Górze (Gliśno Wielkie), per pl wiki. Note that per pl wiki and TERYT, there is a dozen or so different villages have identically named "parts". The current name should be a disambig like pl:Na Górze. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move then redirect per Piotrus.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:10, 23 October 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. ✗plicit 00:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpchi E8[edit]

Trumpchi E8 (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 WP:BEFORE I have been unable to find much in the way of WP:RS covering this to confer notability onto the car. There appear to be some youtube videos on it, but almost no articles on it. It's very possible there's a number of them I am missing given Trumpchi is a Chinese company and some of the coverage might not be in English, but from what I could find it was sparse enough for me that I didn't think it passed WP:GNG. TartarTorte 20:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - seems a little premature. - Indefensible (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - once released, I am sure there will be coverage.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per the above comments. Note that the Chinese Wikipedia does not yet have an article about this car - that's not a requirement for inclusion here, but it is telling.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:46, 19 October 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. The delete arguments appear to accurately characterize the sources as not contributing to notability. The responses simply assert otherwise. If the assertions came from editors with reputations for solid source analysis, I might think twice, but that's clearly not the case here. RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nation Chakma[edit]

Nation Chakma (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:NACTOR. Press falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and looks like a recent press campaign given that most are dated around the same timeframe. CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a recently created article with linkspam references and no clear claim of notability. Unless the article creator can demonstrate better sourcing (per WP:THREE), this should be deleted. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 117.209.102.31 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Page quality or poor edits are irrelevant in the discussion. The subject is a Indian Actor who had represented his country and state ito the national stage. Keep per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, and 7.Andarredot (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Andarredot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Yes I agree, I made few or no other edits outside this topic, doesn't mean this page reference is false. it's my opinion only. Andarredot (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources above which show notability.Ven.kalyandutbhante (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Ven.kalyandutbhante (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. The only sources are either WP:UGC or pretty clearly paid promotion (all in very broken English), one of which that even had a date on it was dated after this AFD started; what a coinkydink! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly a promotional piece. The nominator hits the nail on the head.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. I found 1 among many many other English and Bengali sources . Clearly significant figure in Indian actor and Enterpreneur with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks.27.56.30.252 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Another reference published since this AfD was started. This fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source was already added to the article three days ago. And it certainly wasn't written by a professional reporter. What professional reporter begins half the paragraphs in an article with the subject's full name? It's a PR piece. Largoplazo (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Of the seven numbered sources given above by a Keep !voter,
  • 1 is clearly advertising.
  • 2 is an IMDb page, user-generated, database-driven content.
  • 3 reads as a PR piece channeling what Chakma wants it to say, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.
  • 4 is database-driven content that says almost nothing.
  • 5 reads as a PR piece, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.
  • 6 is so badly written, clearly not a third-party reporting piece. "Nation Chakma is an Indian Actor conceived on March 09, 1996"? "He is the primary tyke from his family who acquired Chakma Actor, Entertainer as his profession."? "He is a skilled and influenced person. He fathoms he needs to put in exceptional exhibits multi-day in day out, and that is what he surpasses desires at."? This is all public relations.
  • 6 (#2) links to another Wikipedia article.
  • 7 is a database-generated listing that gives his name followed by links to some film trailers but no information.

Largoplazo (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources106.221.118.125 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 22:51, 17 October 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 Professional Bull Riders. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PBR Top 30[edit]

PBR Top 30 (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 was WP:BLARred by VickKiang with the rationale all of the refs are non-independent and are from PBR. Refs I can found mention this in a few sentences while covering other subjects and does not pass SIGCOV IMO. I do largely agree with that rationale; however, I am bringing this here (a) procedurally because I don't think that there is a good target for the redirect and (b) if that is the case and this page has contested notability then the page might be best as deleted. TartarTorte 22:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United States of America. TartarTorte 22:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Internet, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and potentially merge anything worth saving to Professional Bull Riders seems like a good solution to me. Pichpich (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sapporo Omoide in My Head Jōtai[edit]

Sapporo Omoide in My Head Jōtai (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)

Ffails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums. BEFORE showed nothing, link in article is to database.  // Timothy :: talk  20:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This album charted at #20 nationally and was on the charts for 6 weeks, per Oricon, therefore making it likely to meet WP:NALBUM. I have not tried to find separate coverage online (and for this period in Japan most relevant sources are on paper), but at worst this should be redirected to the artist, Number Girl. Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM per evidence provided above by Dekimasu.4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital[edit]

SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and organization-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With a quick check in ProQuest, I see some coverage of similarly named programs in Ireland[4] and Canada[5][6], Australia[7], Singapore [8], etc.

I wonder if this is a more general concept? If a concept, will surely meet WP:GNG but of course would need to be at Teddy bear hospital or Teddy Bear Hospital —siroχo 19:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 17 October 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!} 23:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Masood[edit]

Tariq Masood (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 came here via a blocked promotional sock account which also edited this one. The article was PRODded before, by User:Onel5969. The BLP is at best a BLP1E, and even that is sketchy because there just is no reliable secondary sourcing to support a claim to notability. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Individual is quite notable. Keep this page up... Ah507 (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable source available to claim that the subject is notable, Just a YouTuber. He has some coverage after the tongue-controversy with another YouTuber Muhammad Ali Mirza and about other religion. The subject having no proof of being a lecturer at the seminary. He is just known for having 4 wives, and not notable, thus agrees with the Nominator. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While it is true that he is primarily known as a YouTuber, we cannot disregard the impact and influence he has had within the online religious discourse. His notable controversies and debates with figures like Muhammad Ali Mirza have garnered significant attention and discussion within the relevant communities. Ainty Painty (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ainty Painty He has no influence in my view, and if he is an influencer then also, he is not passing the notability criteria. Some websites covered the mouth-fight of Mirza and Masood, this cannot make an individual notable. I really recognize your contributions, but he isn't notable. Thanks Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a shred of notability. Created for promotional purpose. Fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agrees with the Nominators view and comment, also at first glance it seems more promotional content. and failed in WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjoegoldberg (talk • contribs)
• Comment @Maliner and @Mrjoegoldberg The criticism of being a "promotional" page should be addressed with improvements in the article's neutrality, rather than outright deletion. Mufti Tariq Masood's work has been influential in shaping discussions on religion and theology in the digital era. Ainty Painty (talk) 10:11, 22 October 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 Ex tempore decision. I can't relist this a fourth time, so I am somewhat backed into making a determination on what is closer to consensus here with minimal participation. I find this option as outlined by James500 to be the best way forward. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oral reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada[edit]

Oral reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada (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 is essentially just a list of a certain type of case decided by the Canadian SC. There are no WLs (signifying that none of these cases are particularly important or notable). There are only 3 years, signifying that this is a project someone started and never finished. Ultimately, we do not have any sourcing which would indicate why this list is significant or notable. The mere fact that the SC can decided cases in this way does not mean that we need to have a list of all the times they did so. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. The editor who started this ages ago has made some edits recently so this is possibly the best option for now for this in-progress list. —siroχo 02:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with moving to a draft, but the last substantive and productive edit to this page (by anyone) was in 2006. Highly unlikely anyone is going to pick back up where they left off, and even further, I do not see what this list adds to anything. There is no indication that being decided orally is of any significance that would give rise to a standalone list. 16:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ex tempore decision, which appears to be the parent topic, and merge the first paragraph of the lead (but not the list). Oral judgments of the Canadian courts is certainly a notable topic [9], but the article would probably need to be extensively rewritten to cover it. Supreme court cases are likely to satisfy GNG, but there is no explanation why oral decisions of the court should be listed separately from reserved decisions, and I cannot think of one. The page is a plausible redirect, and draftification never results in improvements. James500 (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to decide between Draftification or a Redirect/Merge combo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Khel[edit]

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

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

The article is completely unsourced and was formerly reliant on a single colonial-era source (WP:RAJ)as its primary reference. This article should be considered for deletion due to a lack of credible sources and failure to meet the general notability criteria WP:V. O chawal (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. O chawal (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This source has several pages of information about a military conflict impacting the village where the Umar Khel live (the village is also named Umar Khel). The 2011 source also has brief coverage of a different military conflict involving the Umar Khel. This 2020 source lists them as an existing subdividsion of the Hotak Khel/Hassan Khel tribe and this 1983 source and this 2004 source list them as under the Nano Khel. The United States government geo located the tribe in this 1962 source, this 1922 source includes them, as does this 1914 source. The first source is really the only one with in-depth coverage, but I think that a verifiable people group is encyclopedic. Lastly I am fairly confident that significant coverage exists in J. A. Robinson (1978). Notes on Nomad Tribes of Eastern Afghanistan. Gosha-e-Adab. which is snippet view stated "Umar Khel . - 95 families which are nomadic and have no flocks or land , exist by trade between Kandahar and Dera Ismail Khan . They migrate with the Nasar..." That's all I could see but it appears there was more.4meter4 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 17 October 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!} 23:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bagsar Samachar[edit]

Bagsar Samachar (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)

Ephemeral publication. The article has three references. The first one (in the Historical Journal) is just an in-passing mention, giving the start and end date of the publication. The other two don't even seem to mention the magazine. Does not meet WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Being the first periodical published in the Bhojpuri language is historically significant enough to warrant encyclopedic inclusion. The periodical also appears to have changed names (or rather the script changed), so I am not confident the other sources "don't mention" the periodical. Given the language challenges involved I am uncertain that a proper WP:BEFORE search could be done by someone other than a language specialist in Bhojpuri and Devanagari. For this reason, I'm inclined to lean keep even without SIGCOV proved for certain.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG. Sources in article and BEFORE do not show WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  22:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 20 October 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!} 20:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hochheim, Thuringia[edit]

Hochheim, Thuringia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is very little and is not notable on Wikipedia. This article has only 3 sentences as the article has no references. This article should be deleted. Geko72290 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This article is going to be kept, based upon the content of the German and French WP articles, which are extensive. There is even a claim to notability (which our article on Meister Eckhart says isn't true, but...). It has a population in the hundreds, so it's not just a dot on the map. That said, it's a junk stub that could just as well be recreated from scratch as expanded. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is abundant material at German Wiki, some of which I've just added to get things going.Bermicourt (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. From the German article, this is a notable village. It could have potentially been merged upwards at nomination time, but thanks to Bermicourt now has enough content to stand on its own. —Kusma (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Markussep ^Talk 10:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 24 October 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 with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go[edit]

The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go (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 fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Nothing suitable or reliable enough was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE.

If it helps, here’s what I found in Newspapers.com. The Film Creator (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seeing as Burgess Meredith is a known actor, this is the first and only film he has directed...which I think qualifies the film under WP:NFIC, "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." DonaldD23 talk to me 01:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Donaldd23 If what I’m about to tell you is considered WP:NPA, I truly apologize because that is not my intent (my only intent for sending this article to AfD is out of good faith). I must disagree per WP:NOTINHERITED. Yes, the film was directed by Meredith, and it starred notable actors like James Mason and Jeff Bridges. But like I said, I view that as WP:INHERITED. The Film Creator (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not believe that your statement was NPA, so no offense taken. I understand your position, but I am not saying that the film should be kept because notable actors are in it. I am saying that a notable actor who had an important role in their career (1st and only directorial feature) is the reason for inclusion. Therefore, INHERITED is not applicable. Thanks, and keep up the good work. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Other than the above, it was also one of the earliest films for composer Robert O. Ragland and actor Jeff Bridges. I would suggest that makes the film fall in Wikipedia:NFIC#Inclusionary_criteria and "significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." @The Film Creator: Thank you for doing WP:BEFORE. It seems this film may suffer from "significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films." --Bensin (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go". Psychotronic Video. No. 40. 2004. pp. 63–64. EBSCOhost 19292964. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Internet Archive.

     The review notes: "Nero Finnegan (Jeff Bridges), a writer who is AWOL from the Army, lives off cynical bar girl Tah Ling (Irene Tsu) in Hong Kong. To raise some money he goes to work for the Fu Manchu type Mr. Go (James Mason), "the embodiment of evil." Go blackmails bi-sexual American Professor Bannister (Peter Lind Hayes), by secretly filming him having sex with Nero, who complains of "rough trading faggots!" Agent Leo Zimmerman (Jack MacGowran from Fearless Vampire Killers), a James Joyce scholar, is sent to befriend and deceive Nero. They bar hop, get smashed, talk literature, and party with three Chinese hookers. Tah Ling is kidnapped, drugged, and nearly raped by Nazi like dyke Zelda (Clarissa Kaye). The Dolphin (Meredith) is Go's eccentric double dealing acupuncturist. A ray from the third eye of a large Buddah statue changes Go's personality and he fakes his own death. It ends with Go and Tah Ling making out inside the Buddah during his big street funeral while a Star Wars type laser defense system is demonstrated. Did I mention that Buddah narrates!? Tsu, who looks great, has several topless scenes. Also with big brawls, chases, a Chinese giant, a monkey, and a (white) drag singer. The light pop songs are by Robert O. Ragland. This odd comedy was shot on location except for CIA boardroom scenes with Broderick Crawford."

  2. "Cameramen walk off film set". South China Morning Post. 1970-01-08. p. 6. ProQuest 1510073522.

     The article notes: "The Director of Photography on Burgess Meredith's picture "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," Mr Bob Wyckoff, leaves Hongkong today after quitting yesterday afternoon. Mr Wyckoff walked off the set in a Hilton Hotel room at lunchtime yesterday, together with his operator, Mr. Grady Martin, after only ten days' shooting of the film, which stars James Mason, Jack MacGowran, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. ... However, filming will continue without the American camera team, as Mr Cranston has engaged a local freelance cameraman, Mr Ray Woodbury, to work on the production until Mr Stephens arrives.

  3. Black, Ian (1970-01-27). "Mr Go takes on fresh air of enthusiasm". South China Morning Post. p. 9. ProQuest 1510080766.

     The article notes: "Anyone who saw John Frankenheimer's film Grand Prix in Cinerama ... They were probably the most exciting shots ever set up for a movie anywhere, and the man responsible for them — cameraman John Stephens — is in Hongkong this week. In fact, Stephens will be here for some time, as he is working on Burgess Meredith's new production, The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go, which is currently being made in the Colony. He replaced cameraman Bob Wyckoff, who walked off the set after a series of disputes with director Meredith, and Stephens' arrival has brought a fresh air of enthusiasm to everyone involved in the picture. ... Already, director and cameraman have established the kind of rapport necessary to achieve any kind of success in filming a motion picture. And this obviously has a good effect on the actors — James Mason, Jeff Bridges, Jack MacGowran and Irene. Tsu.""

  4. "Actor has a haircut". South China Morning Post. 1969-12-31. p. 8.

     The article notes: "Champagne bottles were popping together with photographers' bulbs when Burgess Meredith had his head shaven at the Hongkong Hilton last night. The occasion was part of the preparations for Meredith's cameo role as The Dolphin in the picture, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," which Meredith is making here with James Mason, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. Meredith and makeup man, Marvin Westmore, spent more than an hour completing the transformation from Meredith's long-haired Hollywood appearance to create that of a short-haired Mandarin-moustached aging Oriental. Meredith plays the role of a Hongkong acpuncturist in the film."

  5. Sweeney, Kevin (1999). James Mason: A Bio-Bibliography. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 34. ISBN 0-313-28496-2. ISSN 0892-5550. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "Mason then went to Hong Kong for an honest-to-God disaster that couldn't have looked good even on paper. The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go (1969–70) was written and directed by actor Burgess Meredith, going behind the camera for the first time since The Man on the Eiffel Tower (1949). Mason is an Asian arms dealer who gets involved with a young American (Jeff Bridges). This international mishmash ran out of money and was officially never completed, though it may have been later patched together and released in Southeast Asia under the title The Third Eye. It can now be found on video under its original name, with obviously fake new scenes featuring Broderick Crawford."

  6. Less significant coverage:
     1. Jerry Roberts articles:
        1. Roberts, Jerry (1988-08-12). "Oddball movies his bridge to success". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20.

           The article notes: "ven in the cornball and sorely out-dated "In Search of America" (1970), a made-for-television hooter from the hippie era, and in the loony oddity, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), Bridges' talent, which in those days fed on his unveiled enthusiasm, was undeniable. ... If you want to mix in a doozy of a change of pace, rent "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," of which there is no record in almost all of the major film source books. It was directed by Burgess Meredith in Hong Kong, co-stars Meredith, James Mason and Broderick Crawford, and mixes espionage with a travelogue of the city, strange sexual behavior and cracked Eastern mysticism, all adorned with a loopy bubblegum-pop score."

        2. Roberts, Jerry (1991-09-21). "Bridges can't pass up a challenge". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20.

           The article notes: "His least-known film is undoubtedly "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), a Hong Kong travelogue holding up an espionage and acupuncture plot, written and directed by Burgess Meredith, co-starring James Mason and Meredith."

        3. Roberts, Jerry (1989-07-21). "A portrait of the actor as director". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20.

           The article notes: "You may or may not want to recall several jaw-dropping experiences, the foremost of which might be Burgess Meredith's incredibly ridiculous "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), with Jeff Bridges as a hippie in a bubble-gum Hong Kong travelogue about acupuncture, spies and strange sexual proclivities. This one has to be seen to be believed. James Mason and Broderick Crawford are in it, too."

        4. Roberts, Jerry (1993-10-15). "Fearless Jeff Bridges - His bold career eclipses those with more star power". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20.

           The article notes: "In his earliest roles, at age 20, Bridges' talent was undeniable, even in the cornball and sorely out-dated "In Search of America" (1970), a made-for-television hooter from the hippie era, in which he played a Ken Kesey-style social dropout driving a flower-power bus, and in the loony oddity, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), in which he was caught up in Hong Kong intrigue."

     2. "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go". Film Index International. British Film Institute. 1971. ProQuest 1745270154.

        The entry notes: "Alternate title: The Third Eye; Touch and Go. Alternate title: The Third Eye; Touch and Go." The entry notes: "Hong Kong: Concerned with a half-English, half-Malaysian entrepreneur, who suddenly becomes involved in the legend, whereby once every seven years Buddha changes a person and this enables other people to change accordingly."

     3. Sheehan, Ed (1970-05-17). "in Hong Kong the unusual is commonplace". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article said of James Mason, "He is making a film here, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," with Australian actress Clarissa Kay, Jeff Bridges and Irene Tseu. He describes it as "A sort of "Terry and the Pirates' with sociological and religious overtones." One gathers that the picture goes well, though progress and spirits rise and fall with fluctuations of its financing. There is a lavish buffet at noon daily in the Espresso Room of the hotel. It costs less than two U.S. dollars. Barometer of the movie's current condition is the behavior of one of its entrepreneurs. If he eats three heaping plates, making it his single meal of the day, it means things are shaky. Director Burgess Meredith is unperturbed and unquenchable. A highly charged, intense man, he has high hopes for the film. "And give my best regards to Buck Buchwach and Eddie Sherman."

     4. Leach, John (1970-04-17). "Meredith Has No Time for Yesterdays". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "But it's still today and tomorrow that count with Meredith. "I'm in the middle of cutting my latest film. It has been shot and I'm just cutting. I wrote, produced and directed it and I'm also acting in it with James Mason. We rescued a pretty little Chinese girl, Inez Tsu, from Frank Sinatra and she's in it too." The film, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," was shot in Hong Kong and takes its title from a bit of Zen Buddhism. According to Zen, the yin and the yang represent the duality of nature or "the sweet and sour of life," as Meredith puts it. ..."

     5. McHarry, Charles (1970-02-09). "On the Town". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Dong Kingman writes from Hong Kong that Burgess Meredith, directing "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," had his head shaved and his eyes slenderized to play a Chinese acupuncturist in the movie"

     6. Campbell, Mary (1974-01-05). "Jeff Bridges is hopeful despite many setbacks". Berkeley Gazette. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Then there was "The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go," a four-month Hong Kong project Bridges greatly enjoyed and for which he got paid, though it was never released. "Burgess Meredith wrote it and acted in it. The story was beautiful.""

     7. Blowen, Michael (1984-03-01). "Jeff Bridges Chooses Roles With Three Factors in Mind: Director, Story and Money". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "But Bridges can describe how he feels about the second film he made. "This is hard to believe but I played an AWOL Vietnam soldier who was writing a Joycean rock opera in Hong Kong," he said. "The movie was written and directed by Burgess Meredith and it was called 'The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go.' James Mason starred as a Chinese-Mexican guy. That's about all I can remember about it except I think it's better than it sounds." "The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go" was never released."

     8. Schlossheimer, Michael (2002). Gunmen and Gangsters: Profiles of Nine Actors Who Portrayed Memorable Screen Tough Guys. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-1-4766-3546-0. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go. Ross International 1971. Burgess Meredith. James Mason, Jeff Bridges, Irene Tsu, Alec McCowen, Peter Lind Hayes. Confused tale of international arms trading. BC narrates sequences that were added without director Meredith's participation."

     9. Craig, Rob (2019). American International Pictures: A Comprehensive Filmography. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 169. ISBN 978-1-4766-6631-0. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Top-billed Jim Kelly makes only the briefest appearance, but Burgess Meredith—whose own film The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go (1970) shares some similarities with Golden Needles—gives a bravura performance."

     10. "Attacked while shooting film". South China Morning Post. 1970-01-10. p. 5. ProQuest 1510075234.

         The article notes: "A former radio personality was wounded yesterday when three youths attacked him during location shooting of an American film in Wongneichong Road, Happy Valley. Mr Bill Furnival, a 22-year-old former Commercial Road reporter, was assisting in the production of the film, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," when he was assaulted by the youths, one armed with a knife and the others others with broom handles."

     11. "The artist and the professional". South China Morning Post. 1970-01-03. p. 9. ProQuest 1510066621.

         The article notes: "Now Jack MacGowran is hard at work preparing for his role in The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go, with James Mason, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. ..."

     12. "35 years ago this month". Playboy. January 2006. p. 71. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Internet Archive.

         The article notes: "At the time of her pictorial in January 1971 Liv Lindeland was developing an acting career for both the screen and age. ... Still, she would appear in popcorn fare such as The Yin and Yang of Mr Go, ..."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 15:37, 20 October 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!} 20:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Chéry[edit]

Cynthia Chéry (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 has earned at least three caps for the Haiti women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - found a passing mention in ANMWE but nothing more than that Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 21 October 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 and Delete vote struck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sucker Punch (2008 film)[edit]

Sucker Punch (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a review in PopMatters. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only piece of significant coverage that I could find is the popmatters review mentioned above. More is needed. -- Mike 🗩 15:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Based on the below sources.-- Mike 🗩 14:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ....Keep. Hardy's presence has received some retrospective coverage (ex: here, here or here). The film is mentioned in The British Boxing Film. If judged insufficient, redirect to Tom Hardy#Filmography or to List of boxing films.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Maine, David (2011-12-08). "'Sucker Punch': A Series of Fights, Confrontations, Fights, Arguments, Fights, and Fights". PopMatters. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

     The review notes: "Hoo boy, this is a bad movie. There’s a fine tradition of powerful boxing movies out there—Raging Bull, Rocky, even Million Dollar Baby come to mind, not to mention documentaries like When We Were Kings. But Sucker Punch is a different critter altogether. It’s a poorly written, poorly executed, cliché-ridden, low-budget snoozer that’s a chore to watch. It’s not even so bad it’s good. It’s just… very tired."

  2. Glynn, Stephen (2021). The British Boxing Film. Cham: Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-74209-6. Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Shiner's Stoney-Mahoney fight footage echoes the environment (and, alas, filming technique) of another hardnosed boxing adaptation, 3 Finger Productions' Sucker Punch (Malcolm Martin, April 2008), which eschewed Shakespeare for a micro-budget British remake/update/travesty of Hard Times aka The Streetfighter (Walter Hill, 1975). In the US original, 1930s illegal prizefighter Chaney was played by Charles Bronson-real name Charles Buchinsky: in homage the similarly taciturn fighter here bears the same name. Sucker Punch relates how Buchinsky (Gordon Alexander), newly returned to London's boxing underworld, is taken up by flash, fast-talking but strictly small-time illegal fight promoter Ray ‘Harley' Davidson (Danny John Jules)—the equivalent of James Coburn's garrulous conman Speed from Hard Times. Accompanied by a soundtrack from the Stranglers' Jean-Jacques Burnel and Baz Warne, Buchinsky progresses to a climactic fight-off against rival manager Victor Maitland (UFC veteran and 2004 Cage Rage world heavyweight champion Ian 'The Machine' Freeman) and the chance to avenge a previous heavy beating: after a ten-minute laboured slog with repeated fake blood-spitting, he does so. Comic cameos from Antonio Fargas, Tamer Hassan and (a pre-fame but subsequent release-prompting) Tom Hardy seek to leaven the fight scenes' dubious brutality, but only accentuate the tonal uncertainty—a match for the film's alarmingly erratic camera focus and lighting. ..."

  3. Jenkins, Dan (2005-01-03). "Hardman sets sights on a Hollywood career". Durham County Publications. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

     The article notes: "North-East hardman Ian "The Machine" Freeman is taking a principal role in an independent film about the murky world of bare-knuckle fighting. ... Entitled Sucker Punch, it also stars martial arts expert Gordon Alexander, ... He was offered the role after the producers saw him in Sky One show Britain's Hardest, which he co-presented with actor Steve McFadden, former on-screen hardman Phil Mitchell in EastEnders."

  4. "Champ lines up fighting film role". Evening Chronicle. 2005-01-08. ProQuest 349781753. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

     The article notes: "The hard-hitting film is set in London and centres around the world of bare-knuckle fighting. ... Sucker Punch tells the story of a wronged man, Bushinski, who, 10 years after being viscously attacked by Maitland, is seeking revenge. The British, Intercontinental and World Champion ultimate fighter and dad-of-three has taken time away from the world's most violent sport to begin filming, which will end this summer. Writer and director Malcolm Martin, who worked with Brad Pitt on Fight Club, hopes the film will be shown in cinemas in 2006."

  5. Sabbaga, Julia (2020-04-24). "Além de Capone: 6 papéis em que Tom Hardy está irreconhecível" [In addition to Capone: 6 roles in which Tom Hardy is unrecognizable]. Omelete. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

     The article notes: "Lá por 2008, Tom Hardy já tinha feito alguns papeis em filmes maiores como Maria Antonieta e Nem Tudo é o Que Parece, mas seu personagem em Sucker Punch (não o do Zack Snyder, outro filme com o mesmo nome) trouxe de volta seu hábito de metamorfose. No longa, Hardy aparece em menos de 2 minutos como um mecânico, mas mesmo com pouco tempo de tela ele não economizou na transformação."

     From Google Translate: "By 2008, Tom Hardy had already made some roles in bigger movies like Maria Antonieta and not everything is what it seems, but his character in Sucker Punch (not Zack Snyder, another movie with the same name) brought back his habit of metamorphosis. In the feature, Hardy appears in less than 2 minutes as a mechanic, but even with a short screen time he did not save on the transformation."

  6. Less significant coverage:
     1. "A magazine editor with a lot of clout". Durham County Publications. 2005-03-01. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.

        The article notes: "The 37-year-old, from Leadgate, near Consett, County Durham, recently landed a role in the independent film Sucker Punch, directed by Malcolm Martin"

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

  Cunard (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw the nomination per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 18:28, 23 October 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 Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once Fallen[edit]

Once Fallen (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:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found these from Looper.com and Newspapers.com respectively, and neither of them are suitable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also found this link from MovieWeb, which is not enough. The Film Creator (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Found this Dutch movie magazine review here, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for finding that. According to User:Donaldd23, Cinemagazine is considered reliable. However, I will not withdraw unless: A.) there’s one other reliable or suitable review; or B.) more “keep” votes per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Review in Italian at MyMovies.it, which makes 2 at least. Internationally distributed.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw nomination per reviews by Cinemagazine and Mymovies.it. Passes NFO, NFSOURCES and NEXIST. Excellent work, everybody. The Film Creator (talk) 18:30, 23 October 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!} 20:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Fox (badminton)[edit]

Gary Fox (badminton) (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)

Made when the guideline WP:NBAD was more inclusive, however now that the guideline has been revised to just include Grand Prix/Super Series/World Tour, this article no more passes the notability parameter. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. zoglophie^•talk• 19:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and England. zoglophie^•talk• 19:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG along with WP:NSPORT. User:Let'srun 02:07, 21 October 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.‎. I have also lowered protection on the correct main space page title to Extended Confirmed after it was fully protected for 12 years now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doron braunshtein[edit]

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

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

The article Doron Braunshtein is salted against recreation after being repeatedly speedy deleted. This doesn't quite qualify as a speedy deletion candidate but there's still an absence of in-depth coverage in reliable sources so I don't think he meets WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and improve, ru: Аполло Брон appears to pass WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify, Article is in generally poor condition and translation is needed. Seawolf35 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vasudevaperumal Temple (Kolathanvalsu)[edit]

Vasudevaperumal Temple (Kolathanvalsu) (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 could literally find no sources for this temple. Sohom (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Maps link provided shows a rather modest temple in the middle of the field, while I'm not doubting the temple's existence, I don't see it being notable :( Sohom (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, India, and Tamil Nadu. Sohom (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 17 October 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 Acid Mothers Temple discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Gals A Go-Go[edit]

Wild Gals A Go-Go (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and album-specific notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Acid Mothers Temple discography. I could not find enough sources to support a standalone article. Jfire (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Acid Mothers Temple discography per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 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!} 17:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Bae[edit]

Brandi Bae (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 person does not meet our guideline for WP:ENT. Previously, WP:PORNBIO was the guide but it was depreciated in March 2019. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No change in notability since the article was deleted at AfD two years ago. Same junk sources and still fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Independent search finds nothing substantial or reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear to be significantly different from the previous version, which would make this eligible for speedy deletion. Same garbage sources. Note, please do not honor any requests to draftify this article. It appears this was done before, and the person just shoved it back into mainspace with no effort to improve. Zaathras (talk) 21:47, 17 October 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 and move to Urban flight.‎. No point in a Merge as Urban flight is a Redirect page with no content but a link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban colonization[edit]

Suburban colonization (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)

Hard to tell if this is correct as it has been uncited for over a decade Chidgk1 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Behavioural science and Geography. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• AfD is not cleanup. The article has no proper citations, true, but discusses two analyses in named published works and has two "Further reading" sources, so it's clearly notable and probably secretly sourced, just not how we like it.
  Urban flight redirects to this article, which is backwards. Keep and move to Urban flight over redirect. Folly Mox (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah yes you are right I had not noticed the urban flight redirect. This seems a good solution as even I have heard of urban flight so that must be a more common name Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way White flight has over 100 cites but not sure how that fits in Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Urban flight per above. Clearly a notable and much-discussed topic in the news and scholarly sources. The article is quite bad, but AfD is not cleanup, and this does not raise to the level of WP:TNT imo. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Urban flight: No reason for WP:TNT. Nagol0929 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 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!} 23:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Software[edit]

National Software (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)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Arizona, and Wisconsin. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guideline states that in order for a company to be notable, the sources have to be secondary, independent, and reliable. There are three references that cite the "About" pages of companies, one reference citing a Google+ forum, two of them cite the subject's website, and the remaining one doesn't give significant coverage. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 05:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 16:42, 20 October 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!} 23:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk bins[edit]

Bulk bins (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)

don't seem to be a notable type of container Chidgk1 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Scattered mentions of the term in Gnewspapers for example, but simple mentions don't describe what this is, beyond an expanded DICDEF I can't find any sources for this item. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 17 October 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 Ubiedrze. and Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milczany, West Pomeranian Voivodeship[edit]

Milczany, West Pomeranian Voivodeship (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)

Mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

As it says on the PL Wiki article, this is an "unofficial settlement" (nieoficjalna osada). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...) nor is a Milczany in Bobolice listed on the Polish regulation of place-names.

From the over-head satellite pictures you can see that this is just an empty field in the village of Ubiedrze.

Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition, nor evidence of an actual population. FOARP (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pl wiki article says it is in old TERYT database, but not new. Franly, I would see this as an error corrected. Also, pl wiki lists this as "unofficial village extension" for Ubiedrze. I say redirect and merge there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to Ubiedrze per Piotrus. Another bogus bot creation.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:40, 23 October 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!} 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Deterville[edit]

Raheem Deterville (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 has earned at least six caps for the Antigua and Barbuda national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. A few examples of what I did find were 1, 2 and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Antigua and Barbuda. JTtheOG (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - couldn't find anything better than what JT already found Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 24 October 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!} 17:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hutniki[edit]

Hutniki (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)

Mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

As it says on the PL Wiki article, this is an "unofficial settlement" of the village of Przeborowo (nieoficjalna osady wsi Przeborowo). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...) nor is it listed on the Polish regulation of place-names.

From the over-head satellite pictures you can see that this is just a couple of random buildings in the middle of nowhere.

Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition, nor evidence of an actual population. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not in TERYT. Article claims it is a "woodland area", so was this even a populated place, or just a name for some nearby forest (unofficial at that?). I nominated it for deletion on pl wiki (article there has different sources, but first one does not mention this entity, and I can't access the second one). Just in case, it may be good to wait till pl wiki discussion is closed and monitor it for arguments: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:19:Hutniki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Piotrus. Another bogus bot creation.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:41, 23 October 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. ✗plicit 15:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lola James[edit]

Lola James (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)