< September 17	September 19 >

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Havalinas[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, a search for sources only came up with the usual unreliable sources such as allmusic, discogs, etc. in fact a google search only came up with 9,690 results. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not much found for the band, the song that Springsteen covered seems to have much coverage. I'd redirect there. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Seems appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep AllMusic is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources so we have the short bio there but it doesn't have the usual byline so thats a problem, then there is the Rolling Stone piece in the article and a link to the LA Times archive which suggests there is coverage there but without a direct link so its a weak keep and I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just found quite a bit of LA Times coverage such as this, this, this, and this,Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306 or merge to Tim Scott McConnell. Disagree with other merge targets. - Indefensible (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306. The sources found indicate coverage and passing of GNG. Tails Wx 01:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Havalinas were active in the early 1990s. There is substantial offline coverage. Proquest search returns 329 results in publications ranging from the Chicago Tribune to USA Today. [1]. (The Wikipedia Library is an amazing resource.) JSFarman (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306 and JSFarman. There is plenty of coverage in RS to meet gng. Jacona (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fikile Magadlela[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. A search of gnews and gbooks could find no indepth coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not finding any reliable sources to confirm the biographical information presented in this uncited article. The sources I find are

He also has a fairly robust entry in Wikidata. Looks like he made a couple of album covers. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lots of mentions in Google Books - he seems to have been prominent in the Black Consciousness Movement ("the ultimate exemplar of black radicalism") and as an artist was widely exhibited and his art seems to have been sought after by collectors. The reason why he hasn't been covered extensively on the web could be due to the political marginalisation of the black consciousness movement, which wouldn't have benefitted newspapermen trying to curry favour with the ANC. ^[1]. Park3r (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of mentions in gbooks, but are they WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Solomon, A. (2016). Far and Away: Reporting from the Brink of Change. Scribner. ISBN 978-1-4767-9504-1. Retrieved 2023-09-13.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Seems to meet WP:ARTIST as well given the depth and breadth of coverage in academic journals more than a decade after the subjects death. Here's a non-exhaustive search that demonstrates N. There's a lot more I didn't pursue in TWL, Google Scholar, and Google Books.
1. Several paragraphs of coverage along with a gallery of subjects's artwork published in Hill, Shannon, 2018, Nka Journal of Contemporary African Art.[2] (on TWL)
2. Same author (Shannon Hill) with much more coverage in a 2015 academic book from University of Minnesota Press, [3] (on TWL).
  - Note this book verifies some biographical details as well such as year of birth and death.
  - A small fraction of this coverage is noted in an in-depth review of the book by Ciraj Rassool in African Arts [4] (on TWL)
3. Here's a paper from 2016 by Frieda Hattingh in Afrikaans language in de arte journal that seems to have SIGCOV as well including coverage of artistic style and the influence the subject has had. [5] (sadly not on TWL, had to snippet-hunt and then go through Google Translate to get a sense of the coverage)
4. A couple paragraphs of coverage in Steven C. Dubin, 2010, Art in America magazine. [6] (on TWL)
5. Some coverage in Judy Peter, 2015 Third Text[7] (on TWL)

—siro χ o 02:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per siroxo's analysis. ihateneo (talk) 03:04, 19 September 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!} 23:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ganapathikurichi[edit]

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

This article is nondescript and listed to require citations Dec 2018; little to no changes have been made since then. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the place exists, but I can't find any sources that talk about it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a bad article, but it appears to be a genuine settlement, so meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources, fails GNG. Per NGEO,"populated places without legal recognition" must meet GNG. BEFORE did not show any WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 19:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't even be sure it exists. Hence the exit. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 22 September 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 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Evans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus, but my previous analysis showed that sources were either not indepth or third party. A number of keep !voters tried to argue inherent/automatic notability of ambassadors which is definitely not the case. Still fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. None of the sources listed in the article support notability, and the article subject does not have automatic notability under WP:NPOL, which confers a presumption of notability only on [p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. I have reviewed the !keep votes at the previous AfD and have found them unconvincing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No extensive sourcing for the ambassador. Same as last time, could be notable with sourcing, but we have none... Simple confirmation that she held the post doesn't cut it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 19 September 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 1987 New Orleans Saints season#NFL replacement players. as an ATD Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Elliott (American football)[edit]

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

non-notable former NFLer who played in 3 games during the 1987 strike. no significant hits on newspapers.com. no significant hits on google. non-notable. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a significant hit in the Times-Picayune (GenealogyBank). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if an article on 1987 New Orleans Saints replacement roster would work, that way we can merge biographies of those who we haven't found GNG-coverage for rather than just deleting them which gets rid of what is useful information in my view. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like Beanie's suggestion of creating a place for each team's 1987 replacement players. Detroit Tigers replacement players (May 18, 1912) is a potential model, albeit in the baseball context. It could be done team-by-team (e.g., New Orleans Saints 1987 replacement players) or it could be done league-wide (e.g., 1987 National Football League replacement players). Cbl62 (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are 620 players in Category:National Football League replacement players. Cbl62 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would estimate that probably half of the replacements do not have articles, so I think a league-wide list with biographies of over 1,000 players wouldn't work. I think team-specific ones would be better, though I would only want it to be for those who played only as replacements (i.e. not getting rid of stand-alones for multi-season players who also had a decent amount of playing time as non-replacements just because for a time they were replacements). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. If a player has significance outside the 1987 replacement context, a stand-alone may still be appropriate if WP:GNG is satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11 Cbl62 The correct way to treat the replacement players was a puzzler for me when I was working on the 1987 Chargers. I went with an in-article table but found it awkwardly large; I like the idea of a separate article with a table listing the full team followed by further detail on players without articles. For the record, 20 of the 50 replacement Chargers currently don't have articles.

I'm happy to spin the Chargers info out into a separate article. It can act as a template for the other teams. Should I call it List of 1987 San Diego Chargers replacement players, or just 1987 San Diego Chargers replacement players? I'm not sure what the definition of a list is on Wikipedia.

With regard to Ted Elliott himself, I can't find anything mentioning him on newspapers.com except simple rosters of players. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a good title would be - 1987 San Diego Chargers replacement roster perhaps? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "players" to "roster" but I think either is ok. Cbl62 (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1987 New Orleans Saints season#NFL replacement players. It turns out that the roster suggested by Beanie already exists, so this article should be redirected there. Cbl62 (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, in case I wasn't clear, my suggestion wasn't redirecting to a plain roster list like that, but having a stand-alone page (New Orleans Saints 1987 replacement roster) where we include biographies of all those who we haven't found GNG coverage for (similar to e.g. List of Geneva Golden Tornadoes head football coaches). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like your idea, but no such list exists currently, and it is therefore not a viable redirect target. It makes sense for now to redirect to the existing 1987 Saints replacement roster. Later, if someone decides to create the more enriched version, the redirect target can be adjusted. Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - That makes sense to me. Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Venkatesan[edit]

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

This appears to violate WP:BLP1E. The only secondary sources provided are about a single event, her claiming she will file a suit against students, and do not show the event was significant or lasting (sources are dated late April or early May 2008) and the subject is a low-profile person. In addition, The Dartmouth Independent appears to be a student publication which no longer exists so a weak source (WP:RSSM), the WSJ is an op-ed so also a weak source, The Telegraph is a brief mention as is The Chronicle of Higher Education. S0091 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, and New York. S0091 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only media coverage is for a similarly named individual doing polio research. Nothing found for this person. Events described seem trivial, could be seen as an attempt to shame the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's odd this all happened in 2008 but the article was just created last month. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I wrote the article because it was on the requested article list and the requester had included quite a few sources - maybe it had been added to the list years prior and no one had written it yet. I wasn't as familiar with BLP1E as I am now that this has been discussed, so I probably should've looked at that more before writing the article :P (Not !voting because I am far too tired to have coherent thoughts on this right now thanks to IRL stuff) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suntooooth thanks for the information. I do see you posted a WP:NPOVN to get guidance regarding the subject's complaints but I think deletion is probably best in this case. Live, learn and get some rest. S0091 (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how they would pass WP:NPROF and the rest runs afoul of WP:BLP1E. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Is the subject the author of the NICE guideline on long Covid (cited 376 times)? It's the same name but there's no affiliation. There's other well-cited papers on Covid and other topics but they seem to skip around topics, and I'm not sure whether they are all by the same subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the subject Priya.hays has tried to edit the article, including starting and reverting an AfD nomination, and has attempted to get the article edited on the talk page. Perhaps they would care to comment directly here? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the author of the Lancet items is a Priya Venkatesan who got a PhD in pharmacology from Imperial College London [8], while the subject of this article got a PhD in literature from UCSD and was using the last name "Hays" by the time of NICE guideline on long COVID (2021). See the GS profile for "Priya Hays". XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that does seem correct. Delete, as no evidence of meeting WP:PROF, and no lasting impact of the incident described. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some cause of notability emerges. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator. JFHJr (㊟) 03:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor dust-up a decade and a half ago that seems to have sustained no lasting interest is not a solid foundation for an article, and I'm not finding a WP:PROF pass apart from that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. She threatened an action to which she eventually did not proceed and she must be considered notable for that? If only sources would support such inanity. Thankfully, they do not. The text needs to be dismissed with prejudice. -The Gnome (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with PS1-style tank controls[edit]

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

A list of video games that use a particular style of controls. x feature in x type of media is WP:SYNTH at best. Not needed, trivial. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I created the thing you seek to delete here. I gauge its chances of inclusion to be low, but I am excited to interact here and learn more about how Wikipedia functions. Thanks for all the time and effort you put into Wikipedia. Spellbinding Nitwit (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "PS1-style" is maybe not necessary, since the main article is just called tank controls, but this falls under WP:CSC as a "Short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". It's not synthesis when individual articles say a game has tank controls, all meaning the same thing. Synthesis is when you make conclusions about the subject matter that aren't stated in the source material. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an appropriate list for WP. Having discussion of tank controls somewhere is fine, but we don't break down games by their control scheme. Masem (t) 20:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, alternatively merge. The list is certainly verifiable, I do disagree it's SYNTH, and the concept of tank controls is notable, but I don't think this list is appropriate. Any particularly significant examples, as determined by what games have been discussed in relationship to this, can be covered at tank controls in a history of the concept, especially any "modern" examples and any examples that have been updated in newer remasters (as I see Grim Fandango is mentioned in that capacity). ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTN failure in my view. Yes, I know LISTN is unclear on "list of x of y". A list of video games with tank controls, or a category, would be different. However, none of these sources that cover the concept as a group appear to focus on "PS1". In fact, neither of the currently in use sources for a grouping of tank control games mention PlayStation at all. -- ferret (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I also wouldn't be opposed to merging a lot of the relevant information if this list were to be deleted. I do agree with ferret's point that having "PS1-style" in the title muddies the point of the article. If we were to keep the list, I feel it would be best to rename it to simply "List of video games with tank controls". Nonetheless, I agree with ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's reasoning that this is not WP:SYNTH. The sources being cited ARE saying that these games have tank controls. There is no synthesis of different sources being used to make an entirely new argument that would make this WP:SYNTH. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IAmACowWhoIsMad I don't think anyone is challenging that individual entries in the list pass WP:V on the mere fact of having tank controls. The question is whether the topic passes WP:LISTN, WP:N/GNG. Even taking "PS1-style" out of the title and treating it as "List of video games with tank controls", we're left with two sources. PCGamer is reliable, so that's good. But Gamerant, part of Valnet's suite, is considered unsuitable for WP:N questions. So this entire list, from a LISTN view, is anchored to a single source, and no one is providing/finding more. I also did some digging, and it seems this started as a category, which was deemed non-defining at CfD but for some reason was suggested to listify instead. If this is not a defining trait for the games on the list, I don't understand why anyone suggested creating a list without evidence of LISTN suitable sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Also shows a complete lack of understanding of how search engines work. Why have an arbitary list of this type, when it could easily be generated. It is unsuitable for Wikipedia and is non-encyclopeadic. scope_creep^Talk 09:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brawlers (Brawl Stars)[edit]

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

A list of characters from the video game Brawl Stars, listed by in-game rarity. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE, not notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, no. One reliable source in the entire article (unsure about the usability of "Young Posts" so best to not use for notability in my opinion) makes this a blatant GAMEGUIDE. Something like this should only exist if it's a list of in-game characters that are actually notable or if the game's competitive scene is of incredibly large scale (ex. List of Super Smash Bros. series characters). NegativeMP1 20:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I don't mind the listing by rarity, I was unable to find any sources that significantly covered these characters outside of routine announcements. There is also not really any information included to justify it as a spin-off from the main article. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brawl Stars: Seems to be fine to include in the article about the game. No discussion given in this list, just a long wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree b, I don't think there's anything to merge. A list of non-notable characters are to be avoided in video game articles. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 03:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is ok too if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is a game guide. Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GAMECRUFT, we generally don't even want this as a section, let alone a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Brawl Stars Lightburst (talk) 20:53, 25 September 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 Legacy of the Roman Empire. A merge result does not mean that all content needs to be merged, nor that it needs to be merged as it is currently written. If there is a concern that supposed low-quality content would be introduced by copy-pasting the text (with attribution), I think there's hardly any barrier to copyediting or rewriting whatever's worth salvaging before merging. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How often do you think of the Roman Empire?[edit]

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

WP:HOAX Dude here and I rarely think about this or like digging holes at the beach for that matter. Americanfreedom (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hoax, but definitely TikTok coverage falling into WP:SENSATIONAL WP:RECENTISM and unlikely to have long-term notability as per WP:SUSTAINED. For those reasons, delete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire. Perhaps the newness of the trend has not proven to be sustained enough to stand as a full article, but in-depth sources from the New York Times, The Atlantic, and The Washington Post are nothing to overlook. (Plus a Forbes article just released an hour ago, among many, many other sources). I oppose an outright deletion. Delete the redirect of Gaius Flavius, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as I don't think this specific TikTok trend is much more than WP:NEWS buuuuuuuuuut I do think there is space (and reason) for Wikipedia to cover how the Roman Empire lives in modern perception and continues to be a subject of interest for many people. Rome lives in many hearts and minds!★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And as a woman I would like to add that I do think of the Roman Empire at least once a day!★Trekker (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:GNG. DrowssapSMM (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Why delete instead of merging clearly notable coverage?★Trekker (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a brief section in the tik tok article. We don't need to say much more than it exists. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a hoax, but it's just a trend. In the case of long-term notability, no this does not fit that case. It is a meme that can be maybe be included in the Legacy of the Roman Empire, but it will die by the end of the week. Conyo14 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:AirshipJungleman29. If it's still a thing 6 months from now, recreate. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 23:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Merge with Legacy of the Roman Empire. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 10:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire per Why? I Ask. - Indefensible (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire per above as article creator; also @Americanfreedom:, I wasn't alerted of this AFD. — Knightoftheswords 23:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Legacy of the Roman Empire, fails WP:GNG as a standalone article but still has notable sources about it. Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of lasting significance, and it's for that reason that I'm not supporting a merge/redirect, either. Wait to see if there's more than a single news cycle's worth of "check out this meme" before putting anywhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge. Definitely not a hoax; I saw something about this just yesterday—didn't read it, but suspected it might be some sort of debate about hypermasculinity/hyperconservatism. Not sure if it's going to have long-term significance, but evidently it's got a lot of coverage and probably can be noted somewhere. Not sure if it really belongs under Legacy of the Roman Empire, but that's a possible target if not kept at this title. I note that this was nominated for deletion only a few hours after it was created. Since it's not a hoax and neither libel nor inherent copyright infringement (if there is any offending text, it should be easy to rewrite), shouldn't we give the article creator, and anyone else interested in the topic, a reasonable opportunity to expand or otherwise improve the article before deleting it? P Aculeius (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Draftify) - Nothing to indicate that this has any lasting impact beyond the single news cycle in which it was trending. And I disagree with the argument that the fact that it may have further sources in the future to indicate lasting notability means that it should be kept until then. The exact opposite is true - an article on a topic that has not been proven to be notable should not be left in the mainspace of the encyclopedia until it has demonstrated that it passes the notability requirements. I am also against merging it anywhere at this point for the same reason - there is no indication thus far that this trend will actually wind up being notable enough to even be covered in an other article without giving undue weight to how much importance it actually wound up having. That said, I am perfectly fine with sending this back to Draftspace, so if lasting notability is eventually shown for the topic, it will be easy to either restore the article or merge it to an appropriate broader topic. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete votes should just support merging because otherwise we are likely to have no consensus and the article will sit there as-is. - Indefensible (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging with Legacy of the Roman Empire. Looking through that article, it does not have anything like an "in popular culture"-section, so if we merge there, such a section will have to be created. These sections are problematic in general, and adding one to that article would not be an improvement, especially not if it had to include even TikTok memes not mentioned in any secondary sources about the topic. Even a one-sentence mention of this meme will give it as much weight as Italian fascism's obsession with the Roman Empire, which is plainly WP:UNDUE. (I have no preference between keeping, deleting, draftifying or redirecting.) Jhvx (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the sources highlighting it as a fun TikTok meme, but rather a look at how a supposed male obsession with the history of Rome in particular represents how the empire supposedly represents hypermasculinity. That point (not the "meme" per se) is the real encyclopedic content. (See also this Rolling Stones article or this CNN article.) I agree that most "in popular culture" sections or articles are absolutely freaking terrible. But for the Roman Empire, I could see something working. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would really just be one sentence with a source: "In September 2023, males were asked how often they thought of the Roman Empire in a popular TikTok trend" or something similar. It doesn't require much analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Conyo14, the subject is really a modern extension of the Roman Empire and hence Legacy of the Roman Empire is the most appropriate location for the content. Not much sociological analysis is needed, although it can be included with any supporting references. Just because it happens to be a meme on social media does not mean it should be discounted. That is just how it works: history in the making. - Indefensible (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire. While the trend seems to meet GNG and could possibly be kept, I think the merge is a good suggestion, per WP:NOPAGE. A merge also prevents us from returning here if SUSTAINED is not met in a month or two. —siro χ o 05:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No indication that is notable. Its off the moment and has no meaningful historical value. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Why is there all these "merge" entries like its a reasonable conversation. The Legacy of the Roman Empire is a well-written academic article. It will completely destroy it, putting this trash in. scope_creep^Talk 09:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You should reconsider your uncivil attitude, something isn't "trash" just because you don't like it.★Trekker (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire. I would rather it be deleted as un-encyclopedic rubbish, but a merge seems appropriate. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 25 September 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 04:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Findability Sciences[edit]

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. The majority of citations are press releases masquerading as legitimate sources, WP:ADMASQ. Charlie (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Charlie (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 18 September 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. as, except for the nominator, all editors advocating for Deletion have one edit to their accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Torresblanco[edit]

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

Pursuant to Ms Torresblanco coming on help chat re: some allegations that were dismissed with prejudice 15 years back, I've combed through the article (a BLP) and its history, and I don't think she met notability criteria in the first place. Although she's been involved with multiple projects of definite notability, she herself hasn't been the topic of all that much independent coverage. There's a lot that's not independent, and there's a lot that's surface-level mentions of her name, but... these are the best sources I could find: https://web.archive.org/web/20141024135806/http://voxxi.com/2012/02/21/frida-torresblanco-latina-mother-and-hollywood-success-quebulla-voxpopuli/

https://remezcla.com/film/frida-torresblanco-producers-master-class-nalip-media-summit/

https://variety.com/2010/film/markets-festivals/torresblanco-launches-braven-films-1118023649/

Apparently The Hollywood Reporter ranked her as "the 34th Most Powerful Latino in Hollywood, and 13th on the magazine’s list of Latino Women Power 25" at one point, which feels a little... hyperspecific.

Any one of those would be enough to make me think "Hmm... maybe she should be the topic of an article?"

And then after I spent a while searching, and that was all I found, I would decide otherwise.

Thoughts? DS (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's been involved with Pan's Labyrinth and other notable projects. This [[9]] talks about her. Oaktree b (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Torresblanco is s not the projects and they are not her. What does that Variety piece say about her:
- Braven is a company run by her and her partners
- her "resumé is packed with big-name talent and titles"
- she had a recent production that was nominated for a couple of awards
- her "slate involves projects with international superstars"
- an executive at Viacom - a company with which Braven was joining forces - called her 'creative'
- she has an impressive-sounding goal.
And that's it. Notability is not a halo. DS (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Spain, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It seems WP:BASIC is likely met here based on the sources presented. It would be nice to have a source that establishes some biographical details, but it's not strictly required for BASIC. Regarding the above discussion. A subject's resume does not contribute to notability (outside of SNGs that don't apply to movie producers). However, Variety in it's capacity as an independent reliable secondary source, writing about the subject's resume does contribute to notability. The Lang article has a bit of SIGCOV, and it contributes to WP:BASIC. I think the combination of sources we have suffice for WP:BASIC. —siro χ o 20:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see one reliable secondary source mentioned here. And she apparently has film credits as 'producer' for multiple WP:notable works, including some award-winning ones. So I think WP:NBIO#Creative professionals is satisfied (note that WP:PRODUCER points there). To wit:
1. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film...)
2. The person's work (or works) has...(c) won significant critical attention
Although "notability is not inherited", the main thing that makes a creative professional notable is the size and especially value of their creative output. DMacks (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Variety posts around 25 times a day and they've only written one or two articles about her in the past 15 years and they're about her work, not her personally. She is very clearly not a public person. She doesn’t have Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, or any of the major social media sites. To my knowledge she only has a LinkedIn and IMDB page, which is probably for business use and not personal. Since she is not famous, I don’t think she meets the criteria. It's not like she is Jennifer Lopez, so let’s let her have her peace of mind and give her the opportunity to stay off the internet (if she so chooses). DulanDeckay (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DulanDeckay has made no other edits. JBW (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a few more references for upcoming series. I realise not all projects are eventually released. I will keep looking to see if I can find more references for her. Knitsey (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although she has been involved with many notable projects, she is not a famous person herself. The projects are, she isn’t. If she wants her account to be deleted because people are bringing up allegations from 15 years ago, then I think that’s totally fair. If I was someone who had a bit of notoriety, I would probably try my best to remain out of the spotlight to avoid my name being drawn through the mud by random people online. So, if that’s what she was trying to do and random people are messing with her anyways, then I think this is all pretty understandable and shouldn’t require much debate of whether or not she has the right to have her page deleted. WebstersParadise (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WebstersParadise has made no other edits. JBW (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you are considered famous, then your name is your brand. This woman seems to be making money not off of her name, but off of work behind the scenes. If her name has appeared in a couple of variety articles, the articles would have to be about her and her accomplishments, not about a business or project that she happens to be involved with. Due to the fact that none of these articles are centered around her and her name, no truly reliable secondary source supports the fact that she could be considered famous, herself. Vrumteam67 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vrumteam67 has made no other edits. JBW (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 03:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antonietta Cornelia Vetterlein[edit]

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

The only claim to notability that I can see is the painting in the Gallery of Beauties, which I do not think sufficient; a redirect to the article seems quite enough. And the same proably holds for some at least of the other women listed.

TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:COMMONNAME appears to be Cornelia Vetterlein. Curbon7 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gallery of Beauties. Also retarget Cornelia Vetterlein there. Jahaza (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as Cornelia Vetterlein). She seems to have been a significant figure. The article could be expanded with other biographical material such as this.--Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else? I get an error 404 when I try your linkTheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a historical interest, she has had a long enough entry in the Cosmopolitan - Page 455. Cheer. IP God 007 (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC considering sources linked in this discussion: [10] and [11], and another source here: [12]. —siro χ o 05:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Cornelia Vetterlein, as she was a historical beauty, discussed by scholars. 62.181.221.7 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:29, 20 September 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 Yasra Rizvi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senti Aur Mental[edit]

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

Film canceled in production without hitting WP:GNG-level coverage. There is a little bit of significant coverage in this article about the film's cancellation, but otherwise coverage does not rise above quotes attributed to the cast and other PR. I considered redirecting to the director Yasra Rizvi as an ATD, but this has already been contested before and it seems unsuitable given the lack of information about the film at that page (nor is it clear to me that it would be DUE, necessarily) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a few line mention in the director's article, nothing otherwise notable about this film. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yasra Rizvi where the significant coverage mentioned above has just been inserted (by me). Is suitable like that. ...Other sources exist, fwiw.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) (Edited 9/12)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since a Redirect as suggested has apparently been contested, I'd like to see if there is more support before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge as above. Seems merge is basically completed at this point minus the redirect, and I think a paragraph of verifiable coverage of a canceled potential directorial debut project from a notable writer/actress is not UNDUE. I agree this likely should not be kept per NFF. —siro χ o 05:52, 20 September 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 Jason Hamacher. This will leave history in place, so anyone interested in doing a merge can do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regents (punk rock band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Tails Wx 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tails Wx 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland and Washington, D.C.. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources found. Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a sentence or two to Jason Hamacher where it is already mentioned, as ATD. —siro χ o 05:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Wight Garlic Festival[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No WP:SIGCOV references, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have some coverage in the Isle of Wight press, [13]. Few other mentions here [14] and [15] and here [16]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Newchurch, Isle of Wight. Preliminary spinout from the community article. Per sources identified, the topic is notable, just creates excessive fragmentation. The rationale of this nomination defies WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Oaktree b. Many articles in the regional IoW press on this festival - and also coverage in national press, with further articles such as [17] and [18] and [19] and [20]. ResonantDis_tortion 22:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources found above seem to demonstrate GNG. Not fundamentally opposed to a full merge as recommended above, if it can improve things for both subjects per WP:NOPAGE. —siro χ o 06:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable event with RS WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Müller (biologist)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Biology, and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets NPROF 6 as president of Saarland University from 1979-1983. See the German version of the article. Jahaza (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets NPROF #5 as the chair of biogeography at Saarland University. Meets NPROF #6 as the President of Saarland University between 1979 and 1983. Meets NPROF #6 as President for Research of German Rectors' Conference. Meets NPROF #5 as head of biogeography at the University of Trier between 1999 and 2006. All that was just from one paragraph on the German Wikipedia article. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My German isn't up for reading the de version but in addition to the above, there seem to be several notable awards, plus a species named after him, and what looks to be an obituary cited. Looks like an aborted translation of the de article on a notable individual, that was incorrectly tagged for notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 19 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse Mischief[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Education, and Software. UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication that this relatively minor feature is notable independently from its parent programme. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:51, 25 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MotesBooks[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Kentucky. UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find a few mentions about the publisher but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Money (software)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Products, and Software. UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little secondary source coverage apart from the two already cited and another article by Macworld [21]. Most websites produced by a Google search on "Money by jumsoft" are user review sites which fail WP:UGC. Liu1126 (talk) 10:05, 19 September 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. This is basically a procedural close; the page has already been deleted by an admin under WP:G5. There is consensus here that the subject is not notable, though, which was independent of the G5 issue. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz Ahmed Kataria[edit]

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

Obviously fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NPOL. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is yet another "businessman and politician" and the article created by a contributor who "likes to create Articles about Politicians, Businessmans and other famous personalities" from the same region as Kataria. The ground is already unsteady. The dearth of sources (we only have routine listings, announcements, etc) hastens our work. -The Gnome (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax and sockpuppetry, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sazmancrpo. Wikishovel (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mindful Education[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion per WP:BRV, especially in regards to off-wiki information between the creator of the article and Steven Universe, which I won't describe here but suffice to say could be considered a violation of WP:G5. Kuchi Kopi (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As I said in my comment on the AfD for The Answer (Steven Universe) and the AfD for Cry for Help (Steven Universe), the reasoning for this deletion is not only absurd, but so broad that it makes little sense, especially since you are nominating, but claiming it is in regards to off-wiki information, but WON'T even describe what it is! Please withdraw this incorrect AfD. This episode IS notable and the fact you nominated this for an AfD instead of beginning a discussion on the talk page is an indication that this discussion is not productive to anyone. Historyday01 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BRV only applies to articles that were created in violation of a ban. It does not apply to editors who created an article, in good faith, and were later banned. Unless you're accusing Pokelova (the now banned and globally locked article creator) of acting as a proxy or meatpuppet of another banned user, I can't see how BRV or the spirit of G5 applies here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't know the circumstances of Pokelova being banned, but I'd also argue that the article is notable enough, and the spirit of G5 can't apply here either. Historyday01 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I know of the circumstances surrounding the block, at least up to the point of the Foundation GBAN, there isn't a valid application of BRV or the spirit of G5 to be made here. The only circumstance I can think of would be if Pokelova was acting as a proxy or meatpuppet for another blocked/banned editor, but if the evidence for that is all off-wiki based, that's something only ArbCom can handle per other policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Additionally, considering that Pokelova has a global ban and these articles were created before the ban, I don't believe that BRV can apply here, nor can the spirit of G5, as you point out. Historyday01 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is on a notable topic and no relevant reason for deleting it has been mentioned. AJD (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes. Perhaps I need to stop jumping into low quality nominations to identify "the actual issues", since they're kind of doomed from the start, but this is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article (ouch, my afdstats :) ). We already summarize it over in the list, and all the remains are obscure fan blogs and a couple TV/entertainment blogs that recap/review basically everything. I suppose if absolutely every episode of a popular TV show is notable, so is this, but I don't see anything exceptional here. This is the purpose of the episode lists -- to summarize them in one place, without sprawling out to individual articles. WP:NOPAGE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it so unbelievable that "every episode of a popular TV show is notable"? Wikipedia already has individual episode articles for every episode of Star Trek: Voyager, Game of Thrones, and The X-Files, and all but six episodes of Succession, to pick a handful of examples. If an episode is discussed in detail in multiple independent mainstream sources, doesn't that meet the notability criteria? AJD (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cry for Help (Steven Universe)[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion per WP:BRV, especially in regards to off-wiki information between the creator of the article and Steven Universe, which I won't describe here but suffice to say could be considered a violation of WP:G5. Kuchi Kopi (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As I said in my comment on the AfD for The Answer (Steven Universe), the reasoning for this deletion is not only absurd, but so broad that it makes little sense, especially since you are nominating, but claiming it is in regards to off-wiki information, but WON'T even describe what it is! Please withdraw this incorrect AfD. This episode IS notable and the fact you nominated this for an AfD instead of beginning a discussion on the talk page is an indication that this discussion is not productive to anyone.Historyday01 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BRV only applies to articles that were created in violation of a ban. It does not apply to editors who created an article, in good faith, and were later banned. Unless you're accusing Pokelova (the now banned and globally locked article creator) of acting as a proxy or meatpuppet of another banned user, I can't see how BRV or the spirit of G5 applies here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on the other recent AfDs by this user as well. Historyday01 (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is on a notable topic, and no good reason for deleting it under Wikipedia policy has been suggested. AJD (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the other articles put up for AFD by the nominator. Nonsense nomination.★Trekker (talk) 07:26, 19 September 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. AfD is definitely not the right place to discuss suspected sockpuppeting or UPE, and no valid reason for deletion under WP:DELREASON has been identified. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Answer (Steven Universe)[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion per WP:BRV, especially in regards to off-wiki information between the creator of the article and Steven Universe, which I won't describe here but suffice to say could be considered a violation of WP:G5. Kuchi Kopi (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The reasoning for this deletion is not only absurd, but so broad that it makes little sense, especially since you are nominating, but claiming it is in regards to off-wiki information, but WON'T even describe what it is! Please withdraw this incorrect AfD. This episode IS notable and the fact you nominated this for an AfD instead of beginning a discussion on the talk page is an indication that this discussion is not productive to anyone.Historyday01 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BRV only applies to articles that were created in violation of a ban. It does not apply to editors who created an article, in good faith, and were later banned. Unless you're accusing Pokelova (the now banned and globally locked article creator) of acting as a proxy or meatpuppet of another banned user, I can't see how BRV or the spirit of G5 applies here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to clear notability and lack of warrant for deletion. There's no precedent for this deletion under BRV. 777burger ^{user talk} ^contribs 17:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of the article is notable and no good reason for deleting it under Wikipedia policy has been explained. AJD (talk) 20:41, 18 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MidPoint Indie Summer Series[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, United States of America, and Ohio. UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 18 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Glover (composer)[edit]

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

Non-notable article, not enough reliable sources. ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 15:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a list of sources without in-line citations. If someone with access to these articles could evaluate them, a clearer determination of notability could be made. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:23, 19 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niyameddin Musayev[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Older topics like this are harder to source given pre-internet sourcing, doubly so Azerbaijani pre-internet sourcing. That said a blog post from a now defunct blog from 2008 probably isn't enough. On a topic like this (pre-internet) I would be happy to recommend keep with at least 1 reasonable source of any kind but right now I couldn't call for keep. BHC (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Azerbaijan. UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text has been up since 2010 without any improvement in sourcing. The lack of sources in even the subject's native-language Wikipedia is telling. This is no more than a fan's page about a non-notable artist. -The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the respected @The Gnome that the artist is non-notable; however, the article is in a disastrous condition. Someone has to give it a new life with the proper content and sourcing.

Villon411 (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though a negative (my "no sourcing") is rather difficult to formally prove, it is trivially easy to disprove. All one needs is the proferring of sources. Simple assertions "this is notable" won't do. -The Gnome (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or perhaps draftify? I can't find anything, but maybe the sources are not in English. It would be nice if someone found something in a non-English language which met the GNG - and whilst I accept that there has been a lot of time for someone to do that, I'm open to draftify for a while to give another try. JMWt (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Merriman[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Martial arts, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, notability for martial artists and coaches. Nswix (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since our subject does not meet the basic notability criteria or even the criteria for MMA athletes. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. As per nom. Lethweimaster (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I don't think 18 days is necessarily too short to re-open a discussion, but as has been pointed out by numerous participants, the subject matter has not changed substantially since then. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antonela Roccuzzo[edit]

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

only known for her marriage to a footballer. Recommend redirect to Lionel Messi#Family and relationships ----FMSky (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Previous AFD closed 18 days ago. Suriname0 (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previous AFD here under a name misspelling: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonella Roccuzzo Suriname0 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Was kept at the last vote, I can't see that notability has changed in the last month. Famous for being with a famous person I suppose, coverage is there. I wouldn't consider her "notable", but my opinions aren't what we use to establish notability in wiki. GNG is met. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Football, Internet, and Argentina. Suriname0 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD. Giant Snowman 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is written about in a fair bit of tabloid, although wikipedia is against such media that does not discount it. There will be stronger sources that can go in the article, the article could look better, it's not very well written or a great read. Govvy (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly notable figure with many sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per recent AFD.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:58, 21 September 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 Cinéaste One#History. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cinéaste One Student Film Festival[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a film festival, not properly sourced as passing WP:NEVENT. The article claims that it's one of Pakistan's most important film festivals, but fails to provide any properly referenced verification of that -- except for one news article about the 2013 event, this is otherwise referenced entirely to the festival's own self-published content about itself. The article, further, has not been updated with any content about the festival ever taking place again after 2013, and a Google search failed to find any significant coverage to suggest that any post-2013 events were overlooked -- and the article appears to have possibly been created at least partially to drive traffic to streaming copies of short films that were screened at it for promotional purposes, as the 2012 "featured shorts" section included an offsite link to Vimeo for every film listed in it until I stripped those just now as WP:ELNO violations.
There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have a lot more than just one hit of third-party coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Pakistan. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinéaste One, where it is mentioned.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinéaste One#History where it's mentioned. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:09, 23 September 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 Nicke Andersson. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial State Electric[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nicke Andersson. I happen to be familiar with Andersson's work. Imperial State Electric was one of his many short-lived projects, and they released a couple of non-charting albums and did some touring before Andersson moved on to something else. The Imperial State Electric project is already introduced briefly at Andersson's article, and it did not generate enough media notice to justify a separate WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to the Nicke Anderson article seems the best choice, this "project" doesn't meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 18 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Achol Jok Mach[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an activist, entrepreneur and podcaster, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for activists, entrepreneurs or podcasters. As always, people regardless of occupation are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on third party coverage and analysis about their work to externally validate its significance -- but five of the six footnotes here are primary source content self-published by organizations she was directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability at all, and the only independent third-party source is a glancing namecheck of her existence on one page of a book about her country's fight for independence, which isn't substantive enough to single-handedly vault her over GNG all by itself.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she actually has enough of the correct type of sourcing, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Radio, and Africa. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Bearcat: - I think you're right about this one. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The sources invoked are extremely lame: A self-written cv; a fellowship announcement where our subject is not mentioned at all; one single mention in a book about "Africa's longest war"; then a few more routine listings. Her work seems admirable but Wikipedia is a not a political promotion vehicle either way. -The Gnome (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources either are passing mentions or not independent. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RS does not exist at this time. Lightburst (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Gnome and a lack of notable coverage. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 20:26, 26 September 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 12:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Warburton[edit]

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

Previously deleted by PROD in which I said:

Reliable coverage limited to a bunch of articles discussing his Big Machine signing, all of which restate each other so there's no point in adding any of it. That means the article will not be expanding beyond its current state any time soon, and as is this is a blatant WP:NOTDATABASE vio.

Article has since been restored and there is one more source than before, but it appears to me that my point still stands. The coverage here still does not support independent notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That one new source being this interview with Music Business Worldwide. Doesn't seem like the hottest source for notability to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is based far, far too heavily on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, while the media sourcing consists mainly of glancing namechecks of his existence in sources whose primary subject is someone or something else. What's left for sourcing about him is one Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person in a publication that would probably not meet reliable source requirements anyway, and one Billboard article that's technically fine but not all by itself enough if it's the only substantive source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the admirable, last-minute efforts by a single-purpose account, we still do not have enough to categorize the text's subject as Wikipedia-notable. Which, of course, is no reflection whatsoever on their musical talent and artistic value. We have routine announcements in the field press, e.g. here, here, or here; one Rolling Stone 404 link; listings in All Music such as this; the not-exactly-earth-shaking report about a contract extension; and so on. Truly very little in terms of support. -The Gnome (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Sing It: Family Hits[edit]

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

I found reviews from a gaming RS and a general magazine, as well as a very short RS announcement and a situational review. If anyone finds something else substantial from a RS then I might say weak keep, but I'm not convinced of its notability right now. QuietCicada (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Disney. QuietCicada (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found more reviews.Newsday [22] + The San Francisco Examiner [23] Timur9008 (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep With the print sources found, it appears to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added the sources. Timur9008 (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've also found a (surprising) coverage review in Inlander (newspaper) [24], Jeuxvideo.com (it has a slightly different title for the French region) [25]. Undoubtedly passes WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full reviews from IGN, Slant (magazine), San Francisco Chronicle, and Inlander (newspaper) are IMO independent, SIGCOV, and reliable. The Newsday is one paragraph and too short for SIGCOV in my opinion. However, overall, the four full reviews are more than enough for a GNG pass. VickKiang (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jasbir Singh Cheema[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a journalist, businessman and politician, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for any of those occupations.
The attempted notability claim as a journalist is that he existed, with no coverage or analysis about the significance of his journalism; the attempted notability claim in business is that he won an internal staff award from his own employer, with no coverage or analysis about the significance of that; the attempted notability claim as a politician is that he was once a non-winning candidate in an election.
None of those things clinch inclusion in Wikipedia, however: people are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia just because they've done things -- the notability test isn't in the doing, it's in the amount of media coverage that third-party reliable sources opted to devote to analyzing it, but this is "referenced" entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as directory entries and the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be written and referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no coverage of this person in Canadian sources, plenty of coverage around the Air India bombing from the 1980s, likely due to similar names... Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, which, for better or worse, leaves little to add, except to underline the strong aroma of WP:COI in the article's curation. -The Gnome (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saed Ahmed Bhalli[edit]

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

He lost the election and is not elected politician clearly mentions, (lost to ..) he is just a ticket holder of a Party, Hence fails WP:NPOL. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, Pakistan, and Punjab. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get included only if either (a) they have some other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible evidence that their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. This shows neither of those things, and is not sourced anywhere remotely close to well enough to claim that he was exempted from NPOL on grounds of passing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Bearcat. Not elected and nothing notable done outside politics to justify page. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, quite to the point, contribution by my honorable colleagues. -The Gnome (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Also, the article creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Wikishovel (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Dead Go to Die[edit]

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

Not seeing enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. What little there is comes from tiny niche horror websites (and there doesn't seem much of that, either). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, DVD Talk and Horrornews are full reviews and are considered Reliable Sources. Therefore it passes WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 13:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those look like particularly reliable sources. Horrornews is a WP:SPS and DVD Talk ... well, its links to its about page and information about its reviewers are broken, which is not an ideal first impression. It's also stuffed with ads and promotional links. Only information about the reviewer I could find was in the link to his personal page, which does nothing to communicate anything about a reputation for film criticism (it's an artist page). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  These sources have been discussed before and ARE reliable sources. See My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)'s comment below. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Donaldd23 is right: there are two reviews and both sites are considered reliable sources, generally accepted at Afds (see this or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#HORRORNEWS.NET for example, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_47#DVDTalk_and_DVD_Verdict). You don't need to but you can at least add another review at PopHorror (also considered reliable) [26] .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per @Donaldd23 Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above keep votes on the reliability of HorrorNews based on the concerns I commented on the RSN thread, but have not decided a vote yet. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:56, 24 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaya Comer-Schwartz[edit]

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

Article about a borough councillor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, the councils of London boroughs are not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over Wikipedia's inclusion criteria just because the person exists -- it's a valid notability claim for an article that's sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but not an instant inclusion guarantee that overrides any sourcing problems.
But the referencing here consists entirely of a mixture of primary sources (her member/staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own party and the council) that aren't support for notability at all, and a small smattering of run of the mill coverage in Islington-based community hyperlocals, with not even one hit of citywide or nationalizing coverage shown at all.
Serving on borough councils, even as the leader of the council, simply isn't an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Upon reevaluation of the article about "Kaya Comer-Schwartz," it is evident that the references provided are from reliable sources. Let's break down the sourcing:

1. The first citation, "Black History Makers: 'They said I profited from tokenism' – Kaya Comer-Schwartz" is a news article on the Islington Gazette, a well-known newspaper founded in 1856.

2. The second citation, "Islington Labour urges government to support low-income households," is from a local news website.

3. The third citation is a primary source from the Labour party itself.

4. The fourth citation, "Cllr Kaya Comer-Schwartz appointed first Black woman Leader of Islington Council," is from The Voice (British newspaper), a national paper and a reliable source.

5. The fifth citation is a primary source from Islington Council's government website.

6. The sixth citation is again a primary source from "Democracy in Islington," a government website.

7. The seventh citation, "Cllr Kaya Comer-Schwartz takes over as leader of Islington Council," is a reliable source from the Islington Gazette.

Furthermore, there is another notable article about Richard Watts (politician), who was succeeded by Kaya Comer-Schwartz in Islington London Borough Council. Upon evaluating these articles and citations, it is clear that notability has been established. The presence of a previous similar councillor's article on Wikipedia also supports the notion that politicians in this council are notable. Thank you. Arhamic (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more reliable and independent citations one from Islington Tribune which is also about Kaya Comer, another citation from NewsinCyprus.com, one from BBC and more. Arhamic (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources being reliable isn't the only test they have to satisfy — the sources do have to be reliable, yes, but they also have to be covering her in a context that would satisfy the notability criteria for her occupation. For example, every local councillor in every town and city on the planet can always show some evidence of local coverage in their local media — but every local councillor in every town and city on the planet is not always notable enough for Wikipedia. We're not just looking for whether local media coverage exists in a councillor's local media — we're looking for whether a councillor's coverage establishes a compelling reason to treat her as a special case who occupies a special niche of elevated importance over and above most other local councillors, to the point that people on the other side of the world need to read an article about her. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is only generalisation about content, it does not specifically evaluate the sources presented. She's notable because she's being written about with SIGCOV in reliable sources. The sources do not focus on her presiding over a council meeting, or reading minutes of a previous meeting (which could rightly be considered routine), they cover her celebrating Irish revolutionaries, being the first black leader of the council etc. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every single local politician gets some level of SIGCOV in reliable sources, which is why we've written WP:NOT... SportingFlyer T·C 10:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable borough councillor - almost all of the coverage is utterly routine that every borough councillor would receive and while it looks like she was covered in Cyprus, the website says the article was "automatically added to the system." It also reads promotionally, like a CV, and if kept needs to be rewritten, but could also be deleted on PROMO concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a "borough councillor" but a Black-Jewish Leader of a municipal area with 200,000+ people in one of the most significant metropolies on the planet. (FWIW, that population is almost three times the average UK parliamentary consituency). More than adequate sourcing available to satisfy the GNG: eg Town Hall leader: ‘Racism left me feeling worthless’, Cllr Kaya Comer-Schwartz appointed first Black woman Leader of Islington Council, Plaque unveiled in London honouring Irish revolutionary Michael Collins. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first article is the local paper covering local politics so therefore routine, the appointment is clearly routine coverage, and the latter isn't significant coverage, just an article on an event she attended. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people who do or don't live in the entity that a politician represents is not relevant to our notability criteria for politicians at all. An MP isn't notable because of the number of voters in his or her own constituency, an MP is notable because he or she sits in a national body whose law-making jurisdiction encompasses a whole country, and thus has national authority and relevance beyond just their own constituency alone. You can live in the Shetlands and still have every bit as much need to know and read about Caroline Dinenage as anybody in Gosport does, because as a national MP she still has equal impact on your life no matter where in the UK you live — so her notability doesn't hinge on how many voters live in Gosport, it hinges on how many people live in the entire United Kingdom. So a borough councillor isn't of equivalent notability to an MP just because the borough's population might match that of an individual parliamentary constituency, because the borough council's area of jurisdiction isn't equivalent to that of parliament. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, that's not the crucial element (hence "FWIW"), it's the sourcing. Nevertheless, population numbers can be a factor when considering notability, it's right there in WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's clearly not a mayor, though, and mayors of regionally prominent cities are generally kept because they'll receive coverage not just in their city, but outside their city... SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She's clearly not a mayor" ... can I suggest reading this and this to understand the difference between the Leader of Islington Council (primarily political) and the Mayor of Islington (primarily ceremonial). There are sources showing coverage outside of Islington. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need - I understand how it works, especially given I'm writing this comment from Islington. SportingFlyer T·C 09:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Former rate payer myself. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had been leery about the possibility of notability for someone in this role, but the reality of the article is that the role is notable and the in-depth independent sources available from national sources demonstrate that the notability standard has been met. I acknowledge that some of the sourcing is drawn from local publications, but in totality the standard is met. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable political leader, valid claim of notability, passes WP:GNG due to:

https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/well-be-good-listeners-says-council-leader-as-she-invites-residents-to-say-what-they-really-think in Islington Tribune
https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/21228276.councillors-grandad-survived-nazi-concentration-camp/ in Islington Gazette (relies somewhat on primary content, but still proves some notability)
https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/inequality-cannot-be-right-says-boroughs-first-black-leader in Camden New Journal

Combined with lots of interviews, primary sources, and less significant coverage, this all adds up to enough for me to !vote keep. I recognise number 2 above is open to debate, but WP:THREE isn't a policy, and even if you disagree with that, I'll invoke WP:IAR and say the existence of this article about a Council's first Black women leader is a net positive to the encyclopedia, obviously information that people would seek out, not WP:PROMO and useful content. CT55555(talk) 23:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all hyper-local publications. Local political leaders are rarely notable enough for Wikipedia, and we generally require at least some non-local news on them which pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We require a lot more than just run of the mill local coverage in the local media to deem local officeholders notable enough for an international encyclopedia — we would need to see nationalizing or internationalizing coverage, or at the very least reams and reams more than just three hits of local coverage. As I said above, every local politician in the world can show a handful of coverage in their local media — so we're not looking for just the bare minimum needed to verify that she exists, we're looking for a depth and volume and range of coverage that marks her out as a special case of greater notability than everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry, but I'm simply not seeing sufficient coverage that isn't extremely local and routine for an elected member of a municipal government. I would be willing to accept the size-of-constituency argument in some cases, but with all due respect, Islington simply isn't large enough for that. The equivalent for all of London might be a different matter. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, this article should be redirected to Islington London Borough Council as an WP:ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The position is of a local councillor and the coverage is ultra local to Islington. There is no national nor intenational coverage to indicate it passes WP:SIGCOV. There is nothing here that indicates the person is notable. It has been accepted that local coverage is sufficient to satisfy notability. At best it satisfies WP:V and that is the limit of it. scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was tempted to close this as "no consensus", but I think one more go round, analysing the sources already given in the article, and this debate, would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Routine coverage about her political dealings. Not seeing the required notability. We'd need a heck of a lot more talking about her to be at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Irish Post and the BBC are not "hyperlocal" sources. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The councillor attended the unveiling of the plaque which likely makes the that particular source WP:PRIMARY and of no use to establishing notability. It wouldn't be significant coverage. It is also commerating the Irish community in Islington, make it ultra-local coverage. The BBC is just up the road, and does a enormous amount of London reporting on all sorts of stuff that never reported on in the regions, unfortunately. I don't see that significant either. If it was the BBC India covering the event, then yes, that would be ideal. The two of them are confirmation that she not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 21 September 2023 7:25 (UTC)

London constitutes around 15% of the UK population, we do live in the digital era and it's not as though the journalists sitting in Broadcasting House are too lazy to do something other than head up Euston Rd to find stories; the scale of news items about London is a reflection of its size and *international* significance. The Irish Post is a *national* news outlet covering issues related to the *international* Irish diaspora and the cited story has municipal, national and international connections. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it was reported in the Irish Post was because the Irish Ambassador was there, not because of the councillor. That is the test. If he wasn't there it wouldn't have been reported. It is WP:PRIMARY. All of it is local to Islington. scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no basis for parsing the editorial decisions of the Irish Post. WP:PRIMARY is not policy against their use, it is about how they are used: "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense" (see also WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that enough of the sources are about her and not the position. If this is chose to not be kept I think that there could be a future for this so a redirect would be better than outright deletion. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:37, 26 September 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 List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warrick Brown[edit]

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

Many sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Spinixster (chat!) 10:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 10:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per nom. So, you boldly redirected the page in August. Fortunately the reverter didn't have any harsh words. Regardless, this character has no notability outside of the show. Even his actor had very little outside the show. If there are other remaining characters from CSI: Crime Scene Investigation aside from Gil Grissom and Catherine Willows, they are probably ripe for redirection and merge. Conyo14 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. No valuable content to merge - this is just a plot summary (see WP:GNG, WP:PLCUT). WP:TROUT for User:Ebbedlila who restored this poor article without even an edit summary explaining why, making us spend time here now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per Piotrus. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article, and no consensus to expand this from redirect. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:28, 19 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germany in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023[edit]

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

Draftify until the event has been held. This is a contested draftification and is WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is too late to say WP:TOOSOON. The initial performances at the national level have already taken place. The results of voting in the national event are expected to be announced later today (18 September). Similar articles have already been created for other countries. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Everything has already happened, so the nominator's rationale is no longer even relevant. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nominator meant until the Junior Eurovision Song Contest has been held. Because that's, you know, the topic of the article. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either way my vote remains the same. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above comments. ihateneo (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Delete because we're supposed to base this on policy, and when strictly applying WP:NEVENT, this topic is not notable in its current state; almost all coverage is routine. Weak because in practice I doubt that it's worth actually deleting it. The information in the article is verifyable and encyclopedic, and it can't easily be merged into another article. On top of that, I think many people by now expect there to be an article like this for every single country, and it'll probably be recreated quite a few times anyway. It would also mean we'd probably also have to delete more of these kinds of articles; for example Ireland in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 and Latvia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 are arguably even less notable than this. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This article focuses on the partcipation and it should be published when the participation is over, in other words: When Junior Eurovision is over. Unlike other countries like Georgia with a comprehensive national selection, where it makes sence to move the article from draftspace when the artist/song is chosen, the amount of information about Germany's participation is currently very low (same thing with Estonia, which currently remains in draftspace) --David0296 (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so the reason for draftifying is to wait until the event has been held? Are you also planning to draftify 2026 FIFA World Cup while you're at it? ihateneo (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withraw Nomination: The world has moved on and it is no longer too soon. The voting table has filled with results, and it is now perfectly reasonable for this article to exist. Please note that the AfD process suggests that the discussion continue until its normal end date because there are opinions both to keep and to delete, thus closing it early would be inappropriate. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should any prior or subsequent !votes to delete be struck, early closure is likely to be appropriate. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article about someone's participation in an event is something completely different from an article about an event in general. Very weak comparison David0296 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David0296, as per nominator, the norm is not longer relevant at this point. ihateneo (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Time to close this nom. Clearly notable now. And sourcing is good.BabbaQ (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior Eurovision is not nearly as popular as the parent competition. While there are many sources here, I'm not sure that the selection itself is notable. The entire article could be summarized in 2-3 sentences at Germany in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. As it is, the entire background section is already a summary of that article. Grk1011 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is notable, if sources arent sufficient then more can defiantly be found. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there must actually be useful sources. I have looked for sources online, but it's mostly routine coverage that does not go into much depth. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:32, 26 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Murai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

References are a mix of routine coverage, interviews. WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree on a lack of significant coverage. Mostly business press releases and the like on searching. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:10, 23 September 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 Synnex. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert T. Huang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are entirely routine. scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Taiwan, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Synnex (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 10:20, 24 September 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. ^Complex/_Rational 12:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abuzar Ghaznawi[edit]

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

Not notable, all reference lead to one local news outlet iMahesh (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. iMahesh (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO in its current state. A draft for this already exists (Draft:Abuzar Ghaznawi), so we should delete this premature creation. I would also recommend informing article creator work on the draft until notability is established. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 09:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is weak. Shankargb (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pars Paper Company[edit]

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

This place is manifestly a factory. It was previously deleted for exactly this reason. That it is mentioned as an abadi in the Iranian census is neither here nor there. Plenty of factories around the world have dormitories where people live, and would be counted by the census, this does not make them "legally recognised, populated places" - that this is a temporary population is emphasised by the great reduction in population from 5,909 in 2006 to 2,546 in 2011 - they laid off part of their workforce!

Looking at the satellite photos, I'd love people to tell me where exactly the "village" is supposed to be here.

The relevant standard here, for a business, is WP:CORP, and the Pars Paper Company does not even nearly pass that standard - all that can be found are passing mentions of the strikes in May this year and their company website. FOARP (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Geography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate my inclusion in the discussion for deletion of the article. I have no issue with the elimination of the page based on your reasoning; it is solid. There is a link from Hoseynabad Rural District (Shush County) indicating its status as the largest village in its rural district. I'll update that reference, and if it exists in a list of populated places, I can remedy that at the same time. I don't expect any objections to Pars Paper Company's removal; so absent any objection to the proposed action, carry on. Thank you. Brightkingdom (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the reasoning above. It is a company, not a village as evident from satellite photos and there aren't any references which meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. If anything, there seems to be some confusion here with what the sources indicate... but this is plainly a company that doesn't meet NCORP. Bestagon ⬡ 17:39, 25 September 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. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajnish S Kumar[edit]

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

Couldn't find any significance about the Subject. We can also see the subject's active participation from edit history. iMahesh (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. iMahesh (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not my area but the GS profile [27] looks very healthy, top citations 590,535,507,428,373 and around 25 papers >100 citations. The edit from what appears to be the subject appears reasonable (clarifying the h-index is sourced from GS). Espresso Addict (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also ask what evidence is provided for the accusation of paid editing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

The creator of this article, had already received a Conflict of Interest warning from Curb Safe Charmer on 27 April 2020 while working on Praveen Linga Both Praveen Linga and Rajnish S Kumar are associated with the same university, which raises questions about the impartiality and neutrality of the content created by this user, especially when it comes to individuals connected to that university.

Suspicious Timing

The article Rajnish S Kumar was created at 09:35, 18 September 2023, and within just a few hours, Mr. Rajnish S Kumar himself created an account on Wikipedia and made edits to his own article at 12:14, 18 September 2023. Such rapid and coordinated editing activities give rise to concerns about Paid Editing and conflicts of interest. -- iMahesh (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Linga is pretty promotional, though the subject is clearly notable. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

change of vote ~~Delete~~. Thankfully, the kamikaze account responsible for this text, like most of their ilk, works clumsily, thus making editors' life easier. In short, subject fails WP:GNG and both. To wit:

We have a link to Business Insider that grandly purports to show our subject as someone "featured in the world’s ‘highly-cited’ researchers list," while in fact that's Mechanical Engineer Avinash Kumar Agarwal; the link to the University of British Columbia ostensibly supporting the same claim pops up a 404; an uninteresting Google list of Kumar's publications; one more effort to establish Kumar as a "highly cited researcher" gifts us with a totally irrelevant text, mentioning out subject precisely zero times; then, a single mention in an Elsevier catalog about Kumar being on some panel among many about Chemistry awards to young people; finally, a fitting finale as well, we get the news about Kumar being feted with the NASI-Scopus Young Scientist Award for 2016, but, unfortunately, this too turns out to be about bioengineer Sachin Kumar.

There is nothing there except for time wasting. -The Gnome (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing suggestion to Keep. The above forensics are correct but they're trumped by one single award bequeathed to out subject that allows him to pass WP:NPROF #2, the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology, as pointed out by Curb Safe Charmer. The article's still a rotten contraption what with all the self-penned adulatory verbiage and the lame-o sourcing but notability prevails. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria #1 and #2 of WP:NPROF. Highly cited, and won the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology, a notable award. Article needs further cleanup (I made a start). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:02, 22 September 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!} 06:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cooney[edit]

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

Just like any other clerk in thousands of court halls, not notable. iMahesh (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. iMahesh (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be honest, I think this would qualify for an A7 speedy - there doesn't seem to be a claim of significance in the article. The closest it comes to making such a claim is the assertion that he's the clerk at a county court, but that isn't a position that automatically confers notability. The content of the article isn't even supported by the only source (a local newspaper recording the fact of his appointment) - the article describes him as a politician and a republican, but the source describes him as an attorney, and gives no indication of his political stance. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi @Girth Summit:, can I go ahead and close this as a delete? Or should we be waiting for other's view on this? --iMahesh (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now the discussion has started, better just to let it run out - perhaps someone will uncover a trove in reliable, independent sources giving the subject significant depth of coverage (but I doubt it). Girth Summit _(blether) 11:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that I did just discover that the entirety of the article apart from its one-sentence lead was copy/pasted from this site. I've removed some stuff and rev deleted the earlier versions. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable court clerk, fails GNG. (Please wait for an administrator to close this after a week.) SportingFlyer T·C 09:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Based on A7. Easy speedy deletion based on no information found or any claim of significance in the article. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no opinion on whether it's speediable or needs AFD. County clerk is not an "inherently" notable level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself, and one hit of purely local coverage in the local media announcing his appointment is nowhere near enough coverage to claim that he would pass WP:GNG instead of having to satisfy any SNGs. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only notable on a local level. No indication of notability outside of Lake County. He certainly fails WP:GNG. FatCat96 (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that he holds an appointed position and is not elected, Cooney might not even be notable on a local level. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaimana F.C.[edit]

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

Reference link is not accessible, I can't even find any good secondary sources to improve the article. Looks like a local foot ball team, which is not notable per Wikipedia Notability guidelines. iMahesh (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. iMahesh (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 by Deb. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Chat[edit]

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

Too early to be on Wikipedia and violates WP:SOAP. Article creator publicly declared COI at his user page and can be identified as app creator himself. I would suggest to have Protection from Creation. iMahesh (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. iMahesh (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11, pure marketing. Wikishovel (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's a discussion about deleting the Buzz Chat Wikipedia page due to concerns about it being promotional. I'd like to clarify that our intention isn't to promote the app but to provide valuable information to users.

Buzz Chat is an AI-powered Social Networking app that serves a real purpose beyond marketing. It's not just about selling a product but contributing to the technology landscape.

I understand the need to maintain Wikipedia's standards. Still, I believe the page can offer genuinely informative content to readers without being promotional.

Let's work together to ensure the page provides valuable information while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thanks for your understanding. Fredabila (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Already speedy deleted as advertising. This fell well within the G11 category. Deb (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How may i retrieve my articles source. I need some info from it Fredabila (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Mayberry[edit]

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

No evidence found of any Notability, and no obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Massachusetts. Fram (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Yet another faceless private who died of disease before ever getting overseas; there's nothing here providing any basis for notability whatsoever. This is a pretty startling gaffe (as is the one for the co-namer of the town legion hall) from someone with the creator's edit count, and might warrant a look into their other creations. Ravenswing 08:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief section into his hometown's article, he's got the Legion post named after him. Rest is nothing notable, dying from the Spanish Flu would be considered routine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable building by a private organisation is named after him and one other, no reason why this building or this soldier should be included in the town article per WP:UNDUE. Fram (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and merge what, precisely? Ravenswing 12:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I agree that a brief section would be WP:UNDUE as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright on account of failing the notability criteria and without any merging. Text unsupported by sources should be deleted and not dumped elsewhere. -The Gnome (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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!} 05:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Lancashire Primary Care Trust[edit]

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

Defunct organisation, not particularly notable at all, only one self-referencing source Elshad (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable. Most search results are for "East Lancashire Hospitals". FlutterDash344 (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Being defunct is not the same as not notable. Once notable, always notable. A health organization such as this one is likely to be a major employer in its area of operation and to generate a certain amount of media coverage, both when it starts something new and when it makes a mistake. (We can have a long discussion elsewhere about how the HNS doesn't listen to whistle-blowers.) I will try to add some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We really need some evaluation of expansion of article since nomination and addition of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Meath[edit]

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

Does this satisfy WP:NGEO? It seems to be defined within the page as the area of County Meath within the Louth (Dáil constituency). That wouldn't in itself satisfy notability (aside from the fact that this area is set to be reduced to the Drogheda suburbs part only), as that's a common feature of many counties. It does have a profile on the Meath County Council website. A Google search gives some results, such as the Protect East Meath lobby group, and East Meath United. However, contrast that with a search for West Cork, with 6,360,000 results, including newspaper coverage. The sources on the page or elsewhere don't suggest to me that East Meath is a generally notable distinction within the county, as opposed to what coverage might be given in Drogheda, Laytown–Bettystown–Mornington–Donacarney, or County Meath. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry I did not see the AfD sooner, and for that matter, that I did not catch this article. This is largely an "invented topic" and the sources do not support it as a separate entity. East Meath historically was largely what is now called County Meath, and this other definition requires OR. The idea could be briefly discussed in the Co. Meath article, but I'd question even that. SeoR (talk) 21:49, 18 September 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 04:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Live Here Projects[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. First 4 refs are not WP:IS. Next 4 are about a book produced by the topic, so not WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 18 September 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 04:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Svetoslav Ivanov[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bulgaria. UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 18 September 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!} 05:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howa wa heya[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2012 DonaldD23 talk to me 03:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Egypt. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable. 2 Awards. Some sources in English mention it briefly. At the very least redirect to List of Egyptian television series, in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli tanks destroyed in the second Intifada[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:OR. Anything relevant can be included into the relevant Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict annual entry. Longhornsg (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This indeed fails WP:NLIST as no kind of list based on coverage in multiple high-quality resources; on the contrary, it is basically an aggregation of news, and falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Individual tanks and their crews? Let's get serious. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the history section (I just added this header for ease of execution) into Armored Corps (Israel), where operations history is missing. No objection to deleting the article afterward, as it was created only in 2022 and probably not a likely search term. gidonb (talk) 05:50, 19 September 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 02:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Aitken[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. There isn't enough significant, independent coverage by reliable sources to support an encyclopedic biography. Most sources are excessively local blogs, both amateur and newsy, as well as interviews. JFHJr (㊟) 01:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO. His name is a common one so many namesakes come up on gnews. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cape Breton International Drum Festival, which already mentions this subject, as WP:ATD-R. No issues with WP:V for such. —siro χ o 05:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article claims absolutely nothing about his career that would be "inherently" notable enough per WP:NMUSIC to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing, but with only one footnote he hasn't been demonstrated to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Unverified info. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 05:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE, a fact that has no relation whatsoever with their musical ability. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 22 September 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 List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jency Ramírez[edit]

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least two caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, El Salvador, and Georgia (U.S. state). JTtheOG (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Home County Music & Art Festival[edit]

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

The article is a stub with one reference that fails GNG. History6042 (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Events, Organizations, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and flag for expansion. Article does admittedly need improvement, but notability is based on the existence of suitable sources rather than on whether or not they're all already in the article yet — and with over 1,000 hits in ProQuest the sourcing clearly does exist to improve it with. For an event that's been in operation since 1974, you can't presume that Google tells the whole story by itself, and absolutely have to go spelunking in the archives to check for older pregoogle stuff. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, totally agree with bearcat. ((Sources exist)). ihateneo (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 14:38, 24 September 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 02:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Rick[edit]

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

No cited sources and has been tagged with ((NOTABILITY)) since 2010. Essentially, the subject is not independently notable outside of their activities associated with the group, therefore does qualify for a stand-alone article. ihateneo (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Mexico. ihateneo (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone with his name died recently, but it's all in non-RS. I'm not seeing notability for this entertainer. Sourcing used in the article doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Oaktree b Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another effort to prop up a new artist through creating their altar in Wikipedia. Thankfully, they keep using kamikaze accounts, usually a dead give-away. Also, thankfully, the whole promotional aspect is evident, thus saving time for everyone concerned. -The Gnome (talk) 15:03, 22 September 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 Gallery of sovereign state flags. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of the World[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER, the primary redirect to Gallery of sovereign state flags should be restored. See related RM from 2020 here. 162 etc. (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gallery of sovereign state flags -- I agree TheRealOj32 (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as article title for contents of Flags of the World (website), with that article's current title to be redirected there. This was the vexillological website's stable title for 15 years, up until the requested move linked by the nominator. I find the rationale of the closing administrator for that evenly-split discussion at the very least questionable, so take my !vote as a de facto review request for that action. I find it unlikely that someone who takes the trouble to type only the final W as a capital letter (but not O or T, or even F, O, or T) to want anything other than the vexillological website. Flags of the world currently redirects to Gallery of sovereign state flags, so add a hatnote there for the vexillological website per WP:ONEOTHER. Havradim leaf a message 20:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that Flags Of The World also redirects to Gallery of sovereign state flags. 162 etc. (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. Following the same logic, I would be in favour of retargeting Flags Of The World to the vexillological website as well. It is not unheard of to capitalise a proper name title such as this, and it is also evocative of their acronym. Also, see a similar discussion that restored a redirect to a disambiguated term which capital letters usage pointed to. Havradim leaf a message 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gallery of sovereign state flags per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is clearly the more likely meaning for the term than some random web site, even though the web site has the exact title and the other article does not. For an analogous case, see Mathematics in India (redirect) and Mathematics in India (book) (not primary topic). Also note that "stable title for 15 years" is not a valid rationale for choosing a different outcome; the same thing could as easily be read as "violation of PRIMARYTOPIC that has lasted 15 years before we realized that it needed fixing". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 18 September 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 Mahabharata#In film and television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Mahabharat[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 00:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a much shorter portion of the text onto Mahabharata#In film and television, since, on its own, the article's subject possesses no independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 14:59, 22 September 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.